BS: Scott, what originally got you interested in the paranormal?

SC: I always had a passing interest in the paranormal. Growing up, I had been fascinated with stories of unknown creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. Of course, a good ghost story never failed to catch my attention. My current interest in ghosts and hauntings came about as an accident.

            Several years ago, I was invited to spend a night at the Jean Bonnet Tavern, in Bedford, PA by some friends of mine. Mike and Vanese had booked a suite in the Bed & Breakfast part of the Tavern and asked if I wanted to stay in the spare room. I knew that there were stories of it being haunted and I didn’t have any plans that night, so I accepted.

            After dinner, we asked the staff if we could take some pictures in the dining room before they locked up. They were most gracious and allowed us to have the dining room to ourselves for a while. I used two rolls of color and one roll of black and white 35mm film that night. I did not notice anything unusual or out of the ordinary during the stay. It was not until I got my pictures developed that I noticed something unusual. 

            In one photograph of Mike, there was an anomalous column of light. The most surprising thing about the photo was that the column of light cast a shadow on Mike’s back. I showed this to a friend of mine who was a photographer and was familiar with the layout of the Jean Bonnet Tavern. He told me that there was no logical explanation for the column of light in the picture.

            I really did not know what to do with the photo, so I just filed it away and gave a copy of it to Melissa Jacobs, the owner of the Jean Bonnet. Several weeks later, Patty Wilson called me wanting to know more about the photo. (Melissa had shown it to her when she had stopped in.) I met with her and she told me that she wanted to try to document ghosts and hauntings using scientific methods. She asked if I was interested, and, well, as they say, the rest is history.

BS: Whom or what have been your primary influences in researching and investigating paranormal occurrences?

SC: Patty Wilson gets the credit for getting me started in the research and investigating.  I found that her vision for combining historical research and scientific documentation in investigations had the most merit if we are to be taken seriously by the mainstream scientific community.

            Mark Nesbitt has reinforced my beliefs that the combination of history and technology is the best way to document a haunting and provide tangible evidence. 

            Rick Fisher has to be mentioned in any discussion of the paranormal.  Rick has been investigating ghosts and hauntings longer than most of us. His pioneering work has helped many of us progress in the right direction. 

            These people may not get all the media attention, but they are very good at what they do and should be recognized for their efforts in the field of paranormal research.  Anyone interested in the subject of the paranormal would do well to learn more about their work and methods. 

BS: How have your interests changed from the time you started investigating paranormal events to now?

SC: I can honestly say that my interests in the paranormal have not changed much.  They have become more defined, but not significantly changed from when I started.

            I have always wanted to find a tangible way to show that ghosts are not just something that are imagined, but that they are actually physical in nature. The best evidence we can collect is photos, video and audio. This has not changed since I began over seven years ago. 

            One of the biggest changes that have occurred is not with my interests but with technology. When I started investigating, there was a major debate on the merits of digital vs. 35mm cameras in the paranormal community. One argument against digital cameras was that they had a tendency to suffer from pixels not filling in and the result being mistaken for something paranormal (i.e. orbs). Orbs are a controversy all by themselves. My personal belief is that they are some type of electromagnetic energy, but that is as far as I will go into the nature of orbs.

            The other argument was that they did not produce a negative. At the time, a negative was the sure way to prove that the photograph had not been altered.  Digital cameras had no way of providing such proof. The only advantage was that the digital cameras provided instant feedback.  It was necessary to use a digital camera and a 35mm together. 

            Anyway, back to what has changed. Most digital cameras now have the photographic information embedded in the image itself. This information consists of the digital equivalent of the shutter speed, ISO level and flash setting. When viewing digital photos on a computer, this information should be available to you, if it is not; the image has been altered in some way.         

            I believe that today the technology of digital cameras has made them superior to 35mm cameras. The need for a physical negative no longer exists since the digital cameras contain the information embedded in the image to determine if it has been altered. 

BS: What are your current interests in the field of paranormal research?

SC: Digital infrared photography and real-time EVP.

BS: What current projects are you working on in these fields of interest?

SC: The most promising innovation I have been working with is digital infrared photography. Many historic locations that are funded by taxpayer dollars are subject to visitation hours that are at the whim of the government functionary in charge. (I won’t get into specifics for obvious reasons.) I began experimenting with digital infrared photography in early 2006 as a way to take back the night. So far, the results have been amazing.

            It has long been speculated that if ghosts do manifest, they do so slightly within the infrared spectrum. This is a possibility considering that infrared is a longer wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum and requires less energy than light that is visible to our eyes.

            We can see from about 400 nanometers to about 700+ nanometers. Infrared extends past this. Near infrared is what we are working with. It ranges from just over 700 nanometers to past 1500 nanometers. 

            Standard 35mm infrared photography is fraught with problems. Infrared film is expensive. I have found it on Amazon.com for $11.49-$11.99 per 36 exposure roll.  There is no guarantee that it will be in good condition when it arrives. It is difficult to handle, as it must be kept cool at all times. It must be loaded and unloaded in complete darkness. Much experimentation is necessary to find what works best in your camera.  Unless you have your own darkroom, finding a lab that will develop it is very difficult.  All of these problems make the practical use of infrared film very difficult for the average person. 

            All of this was running through my mind as I considered the dilemma of how to use infrared photography in our work as paranormal investigators. Most investigators use infrared cameras such as a Sony NightShots to film at night. They can shoot infrared video and poor quality infrared stills with this camera, but what about daylight video and higher quality infrared shots? 

            Now, back to the orb question. We see moving orbs at night on the video cameras that we use because the NightShot is specifically designed to record in infrared when switched to the NightShot mode. Again, there are many explanations for these orbs and you are entitled to your own opinion. But, how do we film this phenomenon during the day? Those images were still only possible with the use of standard infrared film, or were they?

            My thought was that if a digital camera is infrared sensitive, I could possibly block out the visible light and leave only infrared. I looked over literally hundreds of websites on photography and discovered that it is possible to take infrared photos in daylight without having to buy and process expensive infrared film. The solution was simple; use an infrared filter on a digital camera. How did I arrive at this conclusion?

            Digital cameras use CCDs, or charged couple devices to record the image instead of film.  They are sensitive to the infrared spectrum. If you place an infrared filter such as a Wratten 87B or Hoya R72 on the camera, you can filter out most visible light. By doing this, you are now able to take infrared photos in broad daylight. 

            There are some drawbacks to this system, however. With digital still infrared photography, you need bright sunlight and a tripod. The filter (I use a Hoya R72) requires a time exposure of ½ to 1 second. This is too long for taking a freehand photo. If your camera does not support the threads on the filter, simply use plumber’s Teflon tape to secure the filter in front of the lens.  It will not leave any adhesive residue when it is removed.

            In addition to placing the camera on a tripod, it is necessary to take multiple photos from the same angle in order to compare them with others in the series. It is also imperative to have at least one other person with you while you are taking photographs, that way; there is verification that no one was in the frame when the photo was taken.  Because of the distances involved, anyone in your frame, even at a distance will be visible. Anyone moving in the distance will appear as a blur. This is where multiple observers are a great asset to the photography session.

            If you set a video camera next to your still camera, you can have a record of everything that transpired during your photography session. This will also serve as verification of the events in front of the camera.

            In March of 2006, I was in Gettysburg. It was a cold, windy day. I was at Devil’s Den with two other members of our group. This was the first time I had used the digital infrared technique at Gettysburg. One photo showed two apparitions at the Den, one on top and one in the foreground. I showed this photo to other investigators to get their opinion. They were most interested in my results.

            I have not been the only person to use this technique successfully. Craig Rupp took a photograph on Little Round Top that shows an apparition looking over the rock that is home to General Warren’s statue. A comparison photograph taken later, shows that the ground is currently too high to reproduce a similar effect.

            Still cameras are not the only way to work with infrared in the daylight. There are filters available for video cameras as well. Most video cameras will accept a threaded filter. I personally use a Sony TRV-480 with an M&K 1000 filter. This allows me to use the NightShot feature in broad daylight without damage to the camera. 

            Using infrared filters now gives paranormal investigators the ability to conduct investigations during the day at sites that are normally inaccessible at night. Once more investigators start using these methods; I believe we will see some surprising results.

            The other project I have been working on is real-time EVP. It is said that Edison was working on a device to communicate with the dead at the time of his own death.  Communication with the dead has been a goal for mankind for millennia. Currently, there are some who claim to have a device that can do this. I do not know of anyone that has done an independent study of these devices, sometimes called a “Frank’s Box”. There is much speculation as to what is actually being picked up. Until I see a schematic or am able to examine one, I will reserve comment.

            Theoretically, two-way communication is possible with equipment that is already in use. We use either cassette or digital voice recorders in an attempt to capture EVP.  The problem has always been that we must later listen to everything that was recorded to see if we were successful in getting EVP. There are many theories as to why we cannot hear EVP as it happens, but then later hear it on playback. Is it the magnetic tape, the digital chips or the microphone? I’m not sure of the reason, but I am trying to find out.

            I have put together a system that may have promise. It uses components that most paranormal investigators already use, just assembled in a different way. 

            I have used this system several times and have had somewhat limited results. I have heard EVP as it occurs, but I was not able to discern the words in real-time. Upon review of the recordings, the EVP did make sense when taken in context with the questions asked. This is something that should be experimented with by as many investigators as possible to maximize the chance of true two-way communication.

            This system is still being tweaked, if it works as well as we hope it will, I certainly want to share it. Right now the Ghost Research Foundation team is working on this system under my direction. If it proves out, it will change the way we do EVP. 

BS: What has been your most memorable experience in the field of paranormal research?

SC: The most memorable experience was when I was touched by someone who was not there. My first visit to the Altoona Railroaders Memorial Museum was one I will never forget. 

            I was walking down the hall on the fourth floor with the curator when I felt a tap on my shoulder. I assumed that it was the receptionist bringing me something that I had left on the desk. When I turned around, there was no one there. That was a moment I will never forget.

BS: What are your favorite paranormal places to investigate?

SC: My favorite paranormal place to investigate is the place I have not been to yet.  For those who have never been to Gettysburg, go for the history first, then the ghosts.  Try the Altoona Railroaders Memorial Museum for a great lesson on railroading in Pennsylvania and maybe a ghost or two in the process.  Try our book, “Boos & Brews: A Guide to Haunted Taverns, Inns and Hotels in Pennsylvania” for more places that are some of my favorites.

BS: What do you feel is the effect of “paranormal reality television” programming of the general public?

SC: This is a touchy subject with me. The phrase “reality television” is actually an oxymoron. I have filmed a few documentaries that were very well done. The attention to detail and the facts were foremost in the production. I was impressed by this approach.

            I was also involved in the production of an episode of one of the more popular “reality” shows that has been on for a few years. What I was lead to believe in the beginning, bore no resemblance to what was aired on television. The version on television was very misleading and contained some outright fabrications. Since that happened, I am very wary of  “reality” shows.

BS: In reference to the recent upswing in belief in the paranormal where do you see Parapsychology in 5 years?

That is a question I cannot answer truthfully. With so many changes in belief and technology happening daily, I could tell you one thing today and another tomorrow and not be wrong with either answer. I do believe that in the not so distant future, many of our questions will be answered.

BS: Do you have any advice to give to the readers?

SC: Be honest. Remember, the truth is the goal, not profit or thrills. Many out there have yet to learn this.

BS: Scott, thank you for your time and insight on the issues we have discussed. The IR photography technique is a very exciting development and hopefully some of the readers will give it a shot.

* The opinions and views expressed in this interview are solely of the parties involved and do not necessarily reflect the position of HTM or its affiliates on the matters that have been discussed in this interview.