I'm ticked. I know, you're shocked...

...and I admit, the object of my grumpiness is nothing new... even to a degree on this blog... (although the first link there is more to the point.)

I don't want to go through the "Ins and Outs" of what triggered my latest grumpy moment... but allow me to reiterate something...

If someone claims (ESPECIALLY ONLINE) to be anything, LOOK INTO IT!

If someone says they are the bestest, most wonderful, well-respected, senior, experienced, magnificent, astronomically spectacular ANYTHING, it deserves looking into... doubly-so for anyone claiming to be those items in my chosen field of study.

The BIGGEST problem in the study of things that are considered paranormal is that there is no governing body... no real peer review... and no such thing as an expert. (As I've often said, HOW can one be an expert on the "unknown"??? If you don't know what it is and can not empirically prove what you THINK it is, then you cannot possibly be an expert!)

Basically, ANYONE can CLAIM to be "The Number One Investigator" or "An Experienced Researcher" and realistically, because we lack any true benchmarks, they might have literally fallen off the back of a banana truck yesterday et voila! They qualify!!

"Dating" someone's experience in the field sometimes just takes "Googling" their name... if they done anything and published anything, you'll find 'em... if they haven't, then they can CLAIM that they are "The Number One Experienced Ghost Whatever", but there's no solid foundation for that claim.

As I said in the first link above, (the one that's linked on the words "nothing new",) you'll see that many people claim magnificence... when their claims are, at best, severely questionable.

The late astronomer, Carl Sagan, when poo-pooing claims of the paranormal (which he flipped-flopped on a couple of time,) often misquoted the phrase coined by the late Marcello Truzzi... saying "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence."

Truzzi actually did a couple of things other than that quote... one is he ended up leaving a sceptical group he helped found because they became "deniers, not doubters", and he also wished he'd never said that exact quote... instead, he wished he'd changed it to something that should be a mantra for EVERYONE interested in the paranormal...

This means the onus is on anyone who makes a claim of any sort...

There's no such thing as ghosts! - Prove it!*

Of course ghosts exist! - Prove it!

I am a great and wondrous experienced ghost investigator! - Guess what...

Yup! PROVE IT!

* - For those about to chant You Can't Prove a Negative...

Simply wanting to be something, visiting a couple of "haunts", watching a couple of TV shows while you surf MySpace ghost sites DOES NOT qualify you, in my eyes, as "experienced".

Labelling yourself as such with little to prove your claim seems pretty false in my eyes.

Also, as stated, "experience" is in the eye of the beholder... Perhaps one MIGHT think visiting ten "haunted locations" qualifies as an experienced ghost investigator... but again, it says nothing to me other than have car and time will travel.

How many tomes have you plied through? How much legitimate investigation have you done using proper controls and methods? How many papers or even proper notes have you published? Who do you credit for helping you or providing source materials?

One "online group" claimed to have had a web page up since 1986! Now that's some experience... When I read that one, I had to giggle... They pre-dated Sir Tim Berners-Lee's introduction of the WWW to THE WORLD by three years... and pre-dated HTML by six! Were they part of some secret Berners-Lee alpha project???

This may sound like some sort of "olde farte" sour grapes... which is silly...

I believe that NEW people can enter this study and bring new things to it. I do not believe that anyone SHOULD claim to be "The Number One" or "Most Experienced" unless they can claim original membership status to Britain's original "Ghost Club" or The society for Psychical Research...

I've admitted I've only been about for about a decade and a few years... and although some see me as an "old hand", I don't. I have SOME experience... I'm fairly well versed from multiple and not always agreeing sources... but am I truly "the best"? Not even close. "An expert"? Nope. "Experienced"? Perhaps... but I can back up that claim as can others... and I still don't think my pitiful amount of work comes close to many others who came before me.

I guess what I'm saying is that if someone CLAIMS to be an authority, really question them on that... and look through what you can find on them...

Because, sadly, there is no governing body... and people can make claims with the flimsiest of proof... and they COUNT on you not checking those claims.

...and to those MAKING claims, you better be prepared to back 'em up... or you best consider clarifying what you say... because I have FULL intention to make everyone that will listen to me demand evidence...

...and if you don't pull up your "experienced" socks, then I'll be breaking out the big guns.