Watch out for NEW Old Research

🧠 Kim’s Desk | Opinion

The “New” Old Research Scam: Why the Field Isn’t Moving Forward

Let’s talk about one of the most persistent illusions in paranormal research today: the so-called “new” methods that are anything but. If you’ve been around long enough—and many of us have—you’ll recognize the pattern immediately. It’s the same old content, same debunked techniques, just dressed up with new names, new aesthetics, and the latest iPhone or app slapped on top.

This is the “NEW” old research scam. And it’s running thin.

🚩 How to Spot It

If you go back a decade (or more), you’ll find the same methods being used—just recycled. The only things that have changed are the branding and the tech. The core methodology? Still flawed. Still debunked. Still stagnant.

And yet, it’s being marketed as “cutting-edge.”

This is one of the biggest reasons the field isn’t evolving. We’re not innovating—we’re looping. And worse, we’re calling it progress.

🧪 The Illusion of Innovation

The internet has a way of making things feel fresh. A new filter, a new voice, a new platform—and suddenly, people think they’re witnessing a breakthrough. But if you strip away the gloss, you’ll often find the same tired techniques that were debunked years ago.

It’s like playing the same record over and over, convinced that if you spin it just one more time, a new song will magically appear. But it won’t. Because it can’t. The tracklist hasn’t changed.

💸 The Real Motive

Let’s be honest: this isn’t about research. It’s about marketing. It’s about baiting new eyes—people who don’t yet know the history, the context, or the science behind what they’re seeing. It’s about monetizing belief, not advancing understanding.

And that’s a problem. Because authentic research isn’t a magic trick. It’s not about spectacle. It’s about process, rigor, and integrity.

🧭 What This Says About the Researcher

When someone continues to use methods that have been thoroughly debunked—despite the overwhelming evidence—they’re not on the cutting edge. They’re behind it. And they’re dragging the field with them.

It’s not just a matter of outdated tools. It’s a mindset. One that resists growth, avoids accountability, and clings to illusion over evolution.

🔍 What You Can Do

• Do your homework. Research the history of the methods you see being used.

• Ask questions. If something feels off, it probably is.

• Don’t be afraid to challenge what’s popular. Popular doesn’t mean valid.

• And most importantly: don’t mimic flawed methods hoping for real results. You won’t find them there.

🧠 Final Thought

The truth doesn’t need to be dressed up. It doesn’t need filters or theatrics. It just needs to be pursued with honesty, discipline, and a willingness to evolve.

So if you’re serious about this work, stay sharp. Stay discerning. And don’t fall for the “new” old research scam. It’s not just a waste of time—it’s a disservice to the field.

This material is part of an ongoing inquiry. It is not to be copied, republished, or excerpted without explicit permission. Integrity matters—context is everything.

3 Debunking Approaches 3 Debunking Approaches

⚠️ Note: This isn’t an exhaustive list of debunking methods—just a foundational trio I’ve found to be especially effective. As our tools, knowledge, and perspectives evolve, so too will our approaches. The field is alive, and so is the process of discernment. Consider this a starting point, not a final word.

 

1. 🧠 The Objective Approach: Strip Away the Noise

This is the bedrock of all debunking. It requires you to remove your personal biases, emotions, and expectations—and focus solely on the evidence.

How to apply it:

• Watch or listen to the evidence without commentary, music, or added effects.

• Ignore unrelated details (e.g., décor, background chatter) and zero in on the claimed phenomenon.

• Ask: What am I actually seeing or hearing? What is the raw data?

• Consider all possible explanations based on what’s observable—not what’s implied.

This approach demands intellectual discipline. It also requires a growing pool of knowledge. For example, you can’t identify audio pareidolia if you’ve never heard of it. But once you do, your ability to assess evidence becomes sharper—and your contributions more valuable.

Remember: objectivity isn’t cold or dismissive. It’s a form of respect—for the evidence, for the field, and for the truth.

2. 🔬 The Scientific Approach: Let Nature Speak

Science is not the enemy of the paranormal—it’s its most powerful ally. When we apply scientific reasoning, we’re not trying to “disprove” the unknown. We’re trying to understand it within the context of what is already known.

How to apply it:

• Consider environmental factors: time of day, weather, geological activity, etc.

• Look for natural explanations grounded in physics, biology, chemistry, or psychology.

• Ask: Can this be replicated under controlled conditions?

• Use known phenomena (like earth tremors or pareidolia) to test the evidence.

A personal example: I once experienced a door slamming shut unexpectedly. It felt eerie—until I learned that a rare earth tremor had occurred in my area at that exact time. What felt paranormal was, in fact, geological.

Another common case: people often see faces in orbs captured on camera. But science tells us these are usually dust or moisture particles, and the “faces” are a result of visual pareidolia—our brain’s tendency to find patterns, especially faces, in random stimuli.

Understanding these mechanisms doesn’t diminish the mystery. It sharpens our discernment—and that’s what makes real anomalies stand out.

3. ✝️ The Faith-Based Approach: Aligning with Spiritual Tenets

This approach applies when evidence is presented through a religious lens—particularly Christianity, which is often referenced in paranormal contexts. But the principle holds across any faith tradition.

How to apply it:

• Ask: Does the evidence align with the tenets of the faith it claims to represent?

• If it contradicts core beliefs, it’s debunkable on theological grounds.

• For example, summoning God through a spirit box contradicts Christian doctrine. God is not summoned, and necromancy is considered a sin. Therefore, the claim is not consistent with Christian theology.

This doesn’t mean the event didn’t happen—but it does mean it wasn’t the Christian God. That opens the door to further investigation: Is it a misinterpretation? A deception? A malevolent force? Or simply a misunderstanding of the faith?

Researchers working within a religious framework must be well-versed in that tradition—or collaborate with someone who is. Faith is serious, and misrepresenting it can cause real harm. If something claims to be of God but contradicts sacred teachings, it must be questioned.

This approach also requires discernment. Is the practitioner projecting their beliefs onto the evidence? Are they unknowingly creating fraudulent claims due to a lack of theological understanding? These are hard questions—but necessary ones.

Final Thoughts: Debunking as Devotion

Debunking isn’t about being a skeptic. It’s about being a steward of truth. It’s about honoring the mystery by refusing to settle for easy answers. And it’s about building a field where real phenomena can shine—because we’ve done the work to rule everything else out.

We can’t reduce our field to “everything is paranormal” and “anyone who questions it is a disbeliever.” That’s not only false—it’s juvenile. We must hold ourselves and our evidence to a higher standard.

I refuse to remain stagnant. I refuse to stop growing. And I hope you do too.

So let’s keep asking questions. Let’s keep learning. Let’s keep debunking—not to destroy belief, but to refine it.

Because the truth is worth it.

This material is part of an ongoing inquiry. It is not to be copied, republished, or excerpted without explicit permission. Integrity matters—context is everything.

🎙️ “Scientifically Proven?”

🎙️ “Scientifically Proven?” — The Most Dangerous Phrase in Paranormal Research

Welcome to the crossroads of curiosity and critical thinking—where we separate the signal from the noise in the world of spirit communication and ITC (Instrumental Transcommunication). This isn’t just another takedown. This is a call to elevate the field.

🧠 The Claim: “Scientifically Proven Spirit Communication”

To be scientifically proven, a phenomenon must:

• Be tested under controlled, repeatable conditions
• Be peer-reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals
• Be replicable by independent researchers
• Be grounded in empirical evidence, not personal conviction

If those answers don’t exist, then the claim isn’t just misleading—it’s potentially fraudulent.

🧾 The Consumer’s Right to Truth

• Truth in advertising: Claims must be backed by verifiable science.
• Legal protection: Purchases made under false pretenses may be refundable—or legally actionable.
• Right to question: Asking for evidence is not skepticism—it’s responsibility.

🕵️‍♀️ The Four Faces of Falsehood

Type	Description
1. Ignorant	They genuinely don’t understand what “scientifically proven” means.
2. Fraud	They know it’s false but say it anyway to make money.
3. Liar	They’re knowingly misleading others for attention or gain.
4. Semantic Con Artist	They claim the device is proven, not the communication—a technical truth masking a larger lie.

🔬 What Science Has—and Hasn’t—Proven

• ✅ Science can validate that a device emits radio waves or manipulates audio.
• ❌ Science has not proven that spirits exist.
• ❌ Science has not proven that spirits communicate through apps or devices.
• ❌ No ITC method has been authenticated as a reliable channel for spirit contact.

🧭 The Ethical Imperative in Paranormal Research

Paranormal research is not a playground for unchecked fantasy. It’s a frontier of human inquiry that deserves rigor, honesty, and humility. If we want to be taken seriously, we must:

• Hold ourselves to higher standards
• Reject sensationalism in favor of substance
• Be transparent about what we know—and what we don’t

🔮 Final Word: Truth Doesn’t Need a Sales Pitch

The paranormal doesn’t need to be dressed up in pseudoscience to be fascinating. It doesn’t need false claims to be worthy of exploration. It is what it is—mysterious, elusive, and deeply human.

So let’s stop selling illusions and start asking better questions. Because the truth? That’s the real frontier.

This material is part of an ongoing inquiry. It is not to be copied, republished, or excerpted without explicit permission. Integrity matters—context is everything.

The Courage to Evolve

 The Courage to Evolve in a Field That Often Rewards Stagnation

When most of us first enter the world of the paranormal, we do so with a kind of wide-eyed wonder—young, curious, and often naïve. That’s not a flaw; it’s a beginning. We’re drawn in by mystery, by the thrill of the unknown, and by the hope that we might uncover something extraordinary. And if we’re online, as most of us are, we witness a great deal of change—both in ourselves and in the field—over time. Or at least, we should.

But here’s the quiet truth: many don’t change. Or rather, they stop themselves from changing.

As we grow in knowledge, experience, and maturity, we should naturally evolve. We should refine our methods, deepen our understanding, and allow our perspectives to shift. Yet in a field that’s been largely built online—where visibility often depends on consistency, branding, and giving people what they expect—there’s a subtle pressure to stay the same. To keep performing the version of ourselves that first gained attention, even if that version no longer reflects who we are or what we’ve come to know.

Some get caught in the loop of redundancy—repeating the same tropes, the same language, the same aesthetic that once made them feel powerful or relevant. There’s a kind of nostalgia at play here: the “badass ghost hunter” persona from the ’70s or ’80s, still clinging to the leather jacket and bravado, even as the world—and their own soul—asks for something more honest. It may have been cool once. But as we age, it becomes a costume that no longer fits.

Others—myself included—choose to evolve. Not because it’s easy, but because it’s necessary. We share that evolution in whatever ways we can: through our writing, our work, our presence. We let go of the need to be impressive and instead aim to be real. We stop chasing the crowd and start following the truth.

This should be the goal. This should be the way forward.

But often, it isn’t. Because truth is inconvenient. It asks us to release what’s familiar. It asks us to risk being misunderstood. It asks us to grow up—not just in age, but in depth.

Yet if we embrace it—if we allow ourselves to evolve—we open the door to something far more rewarding than popularity: joy. Depth. Integrity. A sense of alignment that no amount of followers or flashy gear can replicate.

And let me be clear: by doing this, we are not rejecting the past. We are not dismissing the journey—especially the journey of youth. We are not ending our ability to enjoy thrills, chills, or the entertainment value that first drew us in. Just as we continue to enjoy horror films, folklore, or mystery novels as we age, we can still revel in the wonder of the paranormal. But we do so with new eyes.

Maturity doesn’t strip away the mystery—it deepens it. It sharpens our discernment and expands our capacity for awe. We begin to ask better questions. We begin to look in new directions. And in doing so, we move the field forward.

We could remain stagnant. We could keep playing the same role, saying the same lines, chasing the same reactions. But when we do that, we rot. We become caricatures of ourselves. And the field—already fragile in its legitimacy—suffers for it.

So if you find yourself at that crossroads—between performance and authenticity, between repetition and revelation—I hope you choose the path that leads to more. Not more attention, but more meaning. Not more noise, but more resonance.

Because the paranormal, at its core, is not about proving something to others. It’s about discovering something within ourselves.

And that journey is only just beginning.

—Kimberley A. Lombardi Founder, PCA&I | Juniper Season| Juniper Almanac| Multidimensional Intuitive Surrealism

 

This material is part of an ongoing inquiry. It is not to be copied, republished, or excerpted without explicit permission. Integrity matters—context is everything.

Code of Ethics

🧭 Standard Operating Procedures & Ethical Resources

A Foundational Guide for Responsible Paranormal Practice in an Era of Ethical Erosion

In a time when spectacle often eclipses substance, and unethical practices are not only tolerated but rewarded, the need for principled, intelligent, and transparent protocols in the paranormal field has never been more urgent. This guide offers a framework for those committed to restoring credibility, compassion, and critical thinking to a discipline too often distorted by ego, exploitation, and entertainment.

📚 Purpose of This Guide

This section provides a comprehensive foundation for those entering or refining their work in the paranormal and related fields. It includes protocols, procedures, manuals, and tools designed to support ethical and effective practice. While adaptable to individual needs, these resources are rooted in a shared commitment to responsibility, discernment, and the pursuit of truth.

🧠 Code of Ethics for Paranormal and Related Fields

A code of ethics is not a formality—it is a declaration of values. It affirms that your work is not driven by personal gain, spectacle, or opportunism, but by care, integrity, and a deep respect for the living, the dead, and the unknown.

Core Commitments:

• 🧭 Prioritize Integrity Over Ego Uphold professionalism, compassion, and ethical responsibility in all research, investigations, and interactions—with both the living and the deceased.

• 🧘 Maintain Ethical Consistency Do not compromise your standards for popularity, profit, or convenience. Ethical erosion begins with small concessions.

• 🚫 Reject Impairment and Misconduct Never conduct investigations under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Do not manipulate, fabricate, or enhance evidence for effect.

• 🐾 Protect All Life Do not harm animals or any living being in the name of research. Respect the dignity of the dying and the recently deceased—wait a minimum of 3 months (or longer) before attempting contact unless legal consent has been granted.

• ⚖️ Obey the Law No research justifies illegal activity. Ethical inquiry must remain within the bounds of legality and human decency.

• 🚗 Practice Safety Never operate investigative equipment while driving. Safety is a non-negotiable baseline.

• 📖 Be Competent Before You Act Do not engage in investigations or experiments without proper training. Know your tools, your methods, and the risks involved.

• 🧪 Honor the Scientific Process Place the highest standards on data collection, documentation, and analysis. Your credibility depends on it.

• 🌱 Evolve Without Compromise Growth in the field must never come at the cost of ethical regression. Let your evolution be marked by depth, not dilution.

• 🌟 Lead by Example Be a model of integrity. Let your work speak not only for your skill, but for your character.

🚫 Practices That Must Be Rejected by Ethical Practitioners

In an age where deception is often rewarded with visibility, it is vital to name and reject the behaviors that undermine the field’s legitimacy:

Unethical Practices to Avoid:

• Exploiting Celebrity Deaths for clicks or premature spirit communication

• Fabricating or Editing Evidence to create false narratives

• Using Jump Cuts or fragmented sessions to mislead viewers

• Ignoring the Grieving or using their pain for content

• Prioritizing Ego or Fame over truth and safety

• Lying, Misleading, or Faking Abilities for attention or profit

• Avoiding Debunking because it threatens your brand

• Selling False Hope through unverified apps, devices, or prophecies

• Confusing Entertainment with Research—they are not the same

• Falling for Illusionists or unvetted personalities in the field

• Claiming Credentials You Haven’t Earned

• Joining Cult-Like Groups that discourage critical thinking

• Turning the Field into a Popularity Contest

• Equating Expensive Gear with Expertise

• Lying About Spirit Communication for views or sales

🧭 Why This Matters Now

The paranormal field is at a cultural crossroads. As social media rewards spectacle over substance, and as misinformation spreads faster than truth, the field risks becoming a parody of itself. Without a collective return to ethical rigor, the work of sincere investigators will be drowned out by illusionists, opportunists, and digital charlatans.

This guide is not just a set of rules—it is a call to conscience. It is a reminder that the unknown deserves reverence, not exploitation. That the grieving deserve care, not content. And that the field, if it is to evolve, must do so with its soul intact.

This material is part of an ongoing inquiry. It is not to be copied, republished, or excerpted without explicit permission. Integrity matters—context is everything.

Case Protocol and Procedures

Paranormal Investigation - Case Protocol and Procedures

🧭 Case Protocol & Procedures for Paranormal Investigation

A Framework for Ethical, Methodical, and Evidence-Based Inquiry

This guide is intended for investigators and research teams committed to conducting paranormal investigations with professionalism, discernment, and scientific integrity. While procedural variations may exist across teams, the following framework offers a foundational standard for responsible practice.

1. 📞 Initial Contact & Case Triage

Objective: Establish first contact and determine whether the case warrants further inquiry.

• Upon receiving an inquiry, the lead investigator conducts a preliminary conversation to gather essential context.

• Schedule an Initial Interview Appointment based on the nature and urgency of the case.

• Preferred formats: in-person, phone, or secure video call. Text or email alone is discouraged due to the need for nuanced communication.

2. 🗂️ Initial Interview & Case Assessment

Objective: Conduct a comprehensive intake to determine case viability.

• Collect detailed accounts of all reported phenomena.

• Encourage open dialogue—clients may ask questions, express concerns, or clarify expectations.

• Complete and review:

  • Client Questionnaire

  • Case Acceptance or Rejection Form

Decision Point:

• If the case is deemed non-viable (e.g., explainable by natural or psychological causes), conclude the process respectfully.

• If accepted, proceed with:

  • Case Intake Form

  • Signed waivers, disclosures, and expectation agreements

  • Schedule the On-Site Interview

3. 🏠 On-Site Interview & Environmental Orientation

Objective: Familiarize the team with the physical environment and deepen contextual understanding.

• Conduct a guided walkthrough of the affected areas with the client.

• Complete the Preliminary Walk-Around Checklist

• Finalize any outstanding documentation.

• Provide the client with an Investigation Overview Packet, including:

  • What to expect

  • Roles of any specialists (e.g., intuitive consultants, animal communicators, psychic artists)

  • Consent and release forms for all participants

• Address logistical details and pre-investigation protocols.

4. 🔬 Field Investigation

Objective: Execute the investigation with precision, professionalism, and ethical care.

• Arrive on-site and perform all technical and spiritual setup:

  • Audio/video equipment, EMF meters, ITC devices, environmental sensors

  • Spiritual or intuitive tools, if applicable

• Ensure all equipment is tested and operational.

• Relocate clients if necessary to preserve environmental control.

• Conduct the investigation according to the pre-established plan.

• Conclude with a Post-Investigation Walkthrough and client debrief.

• Complete the Investigation Satisfaction Form.

5. 🧠 Evidence Analysis & Internal Review

Objective: Evaluate findings with intellectual rigor and collaborative insight.

• Allocate sufficient time for:

  • Reviewing audio/video data

  • Analyzing ITC/EVP recordings

  • Cross-referencing environmental readings

• Convene a Case Review Meeting to:

  • Synthesize findings

  • Discuss anomalies, patterns, and potential explanations

  • Formulate a Case Conclusion and Client Care Plan

6. 📄 Client Debrief & Case Resolution

Objective: Deliver findings with clarity, compassion, and actionable guidance.

• Present a written Case Summary Report to the client.

• Review all findings, interpretations, and recommendations.

• Offer a Care Plan that may include:

  • Environmental changes

  • Psychological support referrals

  • Spiritual or energetic practices (if aligned with client beliefs)

• Determine whether to:

  • Officially close the case

  • Schedule a follow-up

  • Plan a secondary investigation

Professional Courtesy: Send a thank-you note to the client promptly. Reaffirm availability for future support.

7. 🔁 Follow-Up & Case Closure

Objective: Ensure client well-being and procedural closure.

• Conduct a follow-up interview to assess:

  • Client satisfaction with the care plan

  • Any recurrence or escalation of phenomena

• Provide optional feedback forms or surveys.

• If no further action is needed, formally close the case.

🧭 Final Note

This material is part of an ongoing inquiry. It is not to be copied, republished, or excerpted without explicit permission. Integrity matters—context is everything.

Science in Paranormal Research

🧠 The Role of Science in Paranormal Research: A Call for Epistemic Integrity

🔍 Defining the Object of Inquiry

In any scientific endeavor, the first imperative is ontological clarity: the object under investigation must be precisely identified. If one claims to be studying a red blood cell, it must, in fact, be a red blood cell—verifiable, observable, and distinct from other biological entities. This foundational principle of identification is not merely procedural; it is epistemological. Without it, inquiry collapses into speculation.

👻 Establishing the Paranormal

Paranormal research faces a unique epistemic burden: before any scientific method can be applied, the phenomenon in question must be shown to be genuinely “paranormal.” That is, it must lie outside the explanatory scope of current scientific understanding. If a phenomenon can be accounted for by known psychological, physical, or environmental mechanisms, it is—by definition—not paranormal.

The Oxford Languages define the paranormal as “events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.” This definition demands that psychology, as a science, be included in the vetting process. Misattributing psychological phenomena to the paranormal undermines both disciplines and erodes public trust.

🧪 Criteria for Scientific Engagement

To elevate paranormal research beyond anecdote and entertainment, it must be subjected to the same methodological rigor as any other scientific field. This includes:

• Controlled Research Environments Scientific credibility hinges on control. Every variable—temporal, environmental, procedural—must be accounted for. Hypotheses must be clearly articulated, methodologies repeatable, and data collection systematic. Only through such rigor can results be validated and replicated.

• Limitations of Uncontrolled Settings While spontaneous or uncontrolled experiences may offer intriguing leads, they cannot yield definitive conclusions. Anecdotal evidence, no matter how compelling, lacks the reproducibility required for scientific validation. Without control, conclusions remain speculative, and the field remains marginalized.

🧭 The Imperative of Scientific Integrity

Science is not the adversary of the paranormal—it is its only viable path to legitimacy. For the field to be taken seriously, researchers must not only understand scientific principles but also apply them with intellectual honesty. This includes the willingness to:

• Accept when phenomena are explainable by existing science.

• Abandon cherished theories when evidence contradicts them.

• Resist the temptation to prioritize entertainment over epistemic responsibility.

⚖️ Bridging Worlds: Toward a Mature Paradigm

The greatest challenge facing paranormal research today is not the absence of phenomena, but the reluctance to engage them with disciplined inquiry. Too often, researchers retreat from science when it threatens their assumptions or undermines the mystique of their findings. This resistance stunts the field’s evolution.

To move forward, paranormal inquiry must mature—embracing falsifiability, methodological transparency, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Only then can it transcend its current liminality and contribute meaningfully to our understanding of consciousness, perception, and the boundaries of human experience.

This material is part of an ongoing inquiry. It is not to be copied, republished, or excerpted without explicit permission. Integrity matters—context is everything.