With all the kooks and frauds out there – not to mention the potential criminals – going into people’s houses I think this is a good idea Good job!

Report this comment

I agree with this 100% for this growing (but degenerate community) needs to be authenticated in order for most to take it seriously.

How will groups pay for this service?

Report this comment

Nice to see something is actually being done to protect the people that are asking them to come into there homes. Just one question Ron, how are you going to get the word out to the general public and what if no paranormal groups or very few of the 100s out there don’t want to participate?

Terry I would assume groups would either ask their members to chip in or the group leader would foot the fee themselves.

Report this comment

@mcash:

I think it would be advantageous for them to join since others have proposed this at scifake and recommended scifake to take control of this situation.

We have studied this concept with many and may actually work if we all come together to make it work.

Report this comment

Great Idea..I would spread the Word.

Report this comment

One of the best Ideas that has come down the pipe line )in a while… I would love to join but I am a (skeptic) of the whole PN thing, also Job references Ha! Not going to get much from the U.S. Army with my security clearance..I think I do my best work off the grid in exposing fraud, and criminal activity in the PN community.

I know that in the near future civil and possible criminal action will be brought against some of the high profile so called PN stars! Thus I would love to but just can not join.

Report this comment

I think this would be proactive in the sense that it would primarily establish a registry for teams that have members that have at least successfully passed a background check and perhaps even drug screening…Then you could delve into the prospect of further categorizing teams by training certifications (huge can of worms), technique, philosophical/religious inclination, related vocational training and medical/psychological training/degrees/background…
More categorization can included adherence to TAPS methodology, teams that lean towards mediumship or those that employ a hybrid mix conducive to both components that seems to be the emerging Zeitgeist of the contemporary PI team…of course the religious allegory associated with demonology presents even more of a need for denominational subcategories…then depending on the vicissitude of the supernatural activity one may be “experiencing”; disseminating all of these complex choices may seem like a daunting task for someone that is already burdened with the emotional duress of a “paranormal” disturbance and this is where the need for a “spiritual consultant” may be necessary to act as a liaison between the client and team…this concept may in fact be a viable alternative to subjecting a client to making these choices and trusting the team to expediently assess their own aptitude…
So …we need to create a scenario that incorporates this hypothetical “spiritual consultant” to act as a sort of regional manager under the auspices of this paranormal BBB proposed…this consultant will be assigned a predetermined number of teams that satisfy background screening and whatever pre qualification guidelines are deemed appropriate to qualify to be registered under this governing body …This “consultant” will be the initial contact for the client and will contact a team based on locale and an SOP appropriate to the clients needs…Eligibility for this role may be determined by an elective process by a group of founding teams or by a panel that is a completely separate entity to avoid the potential for conflict by way of preferential team bias …

I see the primary obstacle that may prove to be an impedance to the inception the proffered paranormal BBB is that being the creation of a collective panel to establish the guidelines so I propose that the first order of business first create a foundation of core teams that are experienced and have passed the initial screening to elect panel members to then set the bylaws and ultimately select the ‘consultants” …
And as it seems like there are often active and seemingly qualified team members that participate here; maybe we can experiment with some exercises involving a consortium of volunteers from these teams to act as our panel to discuss the feasibility of incorporating this iconoclastic paradigm into reality …

A new topic in the forum here may be a good place to start

BTW I don’t qualify because I’m not a team member, just a know-it-all ….

Report this comment

@GodOfWar:

Scifake is not going to endorse teams. Our objective: list qualified teams that meet certain standards.

This is NOT about belief etc as some are suggesting. Seriously, one has suggested a panel of freaking scientist. WTF? Am I not being clear?

The message can’t be that difficult to understand? This NOT about science, religion or God.

One more time: It will be a listing of qualified teams. These teams will meet certain guidelines. Simple.

Report this comment

Good idea but it is going to require a lot of organizing and public relations. I can help in any way let me know.

Report this comment

One question: How will ParaTV groups be impacted by this?

Report this comment

@Joseph J. Andrasi:

I’m not concerned about TV groups …seriously. However, I think we’ll have the support of some TV groups for this idea.

Some groups (hence “some”) have members who are convicted child molesters (NOT high school sweethearts who kissed) and in my opinion …there’s no place for a convicted child molester.

Report this comment

@RonTebo:

Where exactly did I propose that “Sci Fake should endorse teams”? …

What I wrote was completely hypothetical…

I proposed creating a mock up panel in the forum section here consisting of volunteers from team members that frequent the site to study the dynamics of said mock up panel going through the simulated motions of laying the foundation rules and implementing this suggested watchdog bureau ….

I think it’s an awesome idea …

Report this comment

Come join us THIS Sunday, Dec. 6th at 8 PM on Para X Radio as we discuss this topic with Ron Tebo. Simply come to http://www.para-x.com and listen in. We’ll be taking calls from listeners. This will be broadcast on the Para X Radio Network as well as CBS Radio.

Report this comment

God:
“training certifications (huge can of worms)”
I think my opinion and comment on that article
are close to what you are saying.

“What I wrote was completely hypothetical…”
and funny as hell. Your post should be in the dictionary as an example of when the term “Hot Mess” should be used.

Report this comment

Ron:
Why don’t you and your “We have kicked the idea around for some time” people just add this to the Taps family member requirements?
There is already an easily obtainable list of everyone in the groups. Just make this a new requirement to join and do not grandfather any one so that everyone will have to provide background checks. Starting from scratch will be as complicated as your certification proposal.

Report this comment

@VictoriaHelene:

The certificate proposal is NOT my idea! I’m not sure of all the hype and the misunderstanding?

IMO, you can’t certify ghost hunting! Seriously, how ridiculous and asinine does that sound?

Some have written to me to create a committee (board) of scientist. WTF?

Ghost certificate! It hangs on your wall but you can’t see it because it’s invisible. LMAO

Report this comment

There is no way I would provide all that information. Not that I have anything to hide – I’m not a criminal or a maniac – I’m just a very private person. I would make that info available to a group leader, but not a 3rd party.

Report this comment

@Debra:

I understand Debra and these are things we are working out. We won’t ask for private information SS numbers or driver numbers.

We want your client to view your profile (with references); however, to have a profile on Scifake you must meet certain guidelines.

We won’t endorse anybody and the client won’t hold us responsible.

We should start somewhere and this can be the starting point.

Report this comment

@VictoriaHelene:

You mean “Urban Dictionary” don’t you?…

It is hilarious in the respect that it makes way to much sense and would require organizational skills that disqualify most prevalent field thus making any sort of cohesion and uniformity as unlikely as my fictitious scenario….

talk is cheap …implementation is an expensive “hot mess”

Report this comment

@GodOfWar:
hehehe @ “urban dictionary”…

You said it right GodOfWar…

It’s way too complex for most to even imagine as a fictitious scenario, although I do believe others I know are using individuals with science based degrees, I do find this a lot more credible and although Sci-Fake is not the place for this, does not mean there is not a place for it at all…;)

Report this comment

Ron:
http://scifake.com/?p=2439
I assumed that the “we” in the earlier article was you. I stand corrected. This article is just how you are tweaking Mike Hightower’s original idea from the earlier article.

RonTebo Says:

“@VictoriaHelene:

When one says I’m an “Investigator” some will automatically assume you’re certified or have some sort of special training; however, this does not apply for PN investigators and how can the the field be taken seriously without special training (NOT ghost training for those idiots who think you need a certification to be a ghost hunter) or assurance that each investigator is bonded or without criminal history?

Special training would consist of (not limited too) report writing, use of cameras, securing records etc. I know this sounds like asininity but a client is at ease when the investigator is properly trained.

More focus should be on the bonding and the background checks.

If you want this field to be taken seriously then I would suggest to make it a serious field.

Good article.”

Report this comment

Ron:
http://scifake.com/?p=2439

“John Dockum Says:

Wouldn’t TAPS requiring a background check do the same thing? You are never going to agree who is the right kind of investigator.”

It seems that the TAPS idea crossed someone’s mind. I don’t understand why a background check can’t be added to the “Family” requirements. A page of other groups that have proof of background checks
could even exist with huge “TAPS is not responsible for the accuracy of this info”
plastered all over the page. That could help downplay the elitist image and make Jason and Grant seem more like the “real” people that they claim to be.

Report this comment

While the concept in its basic form is interesting…the logistics of keeping track of groups their members etc.. would be almost impossible.

Also, there are many different groups attempting this very thing (or similar variants) How is the general public to know which one to trust or where to go with so many different versions of the same program?

Any time that you try to do anything that will bring paranormal groups together to do anything more than have light discussions, you will have issues with what types of research they feel is correct and the general distrust that everyone seems to have against each other in the paranormal-biz.

I also agree the “certification” topic is a great example of how people will not get along. Some people think that a certification is the best way to keep groups trained, while others think that it is a complete waste of time and nobody can train for this type of work.

The only way that this field is going to be taken seriously is to wait for the fad tv shows and the wanna-be ghost hunters to loose interest.

Report this comment

While I commend your idea in theory. My question is,What gives you the right to pry this far into someone else’s business and then turn around and charge them a “fee” for the intrusion? No offense but,it looks like a money making scheme to me and very close to extortion. e.g. “Join my site and pay me or I’ll call you a fraud on my site and ruin your reputation”

Report this comment

Extortion? Now that’s funny and I appreciate the humor. No one is twisting your arm to join and certainly no one is twisting your arm to read the articles.

Report this comment

If I had a reputable paranormal organization, the last thing I would want would be a fakery-exposing website that had files on all the members in my paranormal organization…..

I mean not only could they be used against us somehow, but what sort of privacy agreements would have to be in place?

I garuntee the last thing TAPS wants is SYFAKE to have detailed fiels on all of their members…

Report this comment

This is kind of off topic.
I found something a few days ago and this is my first chance to post the information.
http://www.skepticalviewer.com/2009/11/05/gh-oakland-hall/

Report this comment

@admin: No humor meant. Look up the definition of the word “extortion” and that is exactly what your so-called BBB would be doing. In your idea for this you want to charge paranormal orginizations a fee to give them credibility. If there was no profit for you on your end I would agree.
Again, I ask what gives you that right? How is this not extortion? Why should anyone have to give ANY of their personal information to you such as cell phone numbers,Home addresses,emails and then pay you for the inconvieniance of you prying into their business?
I’m willing to bet that 99% of the orginizations are going to tell you to go F yourself. Not only that,but how does one prove their education in a field that doesn’t really exist? It’s all theoretical research and none of it is provable.
I’m sorry ,but this really seems like a money making scheme on your part and it makes you no better than that TAPS jackass that’s been scamming people out of money with his seminars.

Report this comment

Someone jealous! It’s okay and please do keep coming back to visit for we have missed you!

Report this comment

@Daniel N:

It makes him MUCH better than that TAPS jackass because this will primarily screen for a criminal background thus preventing sex offenders from joining teams like that band of buffoons from Wisconsin one was a member of until exposed here …

Report this comment

Good idea Ron, it will keep out the sex offenders. But how do you know they are giving you true info ?

Report this comment

@Jim:

I’m not sure if I’m going through with this for there’s so much to be done and I don’t have the staff!

Also, I’m working on http://www.itshaunted.com and that’s where my time is going to be spent.

If someone is interested …I’m willing to negotiate scifake.com

Report this comment

@RonTebo: Ron, you can keep the Scifake.com and just have it go to your new website. I own 10 website addresses of old companies. Talk to your web provider on how to do it.

Report this comment

@Jim:

Forward and/or mask? No, I’ll keep scifake; however, if someone want to purchase it I’m all ears.

Report this comment

@RonTebo: What’s happens is when someone clicks on Scifake it goes to your new website. Thus it will increase your web hits. It took mine from 100 a day to over 5000.

Report this comment

@Daniel N: Well background checks do cost money. The only nationwide check you can do for free is for sex offenders, therefor to do a search most places charge monthly fees to do x number of searches which isn’t cheap. So try and do a little more plus there are other costs including labor that would go into a site of that extent. Do you know anybody that would be willing to shell out the 1,000s of dollars (just a guess as i have not looked into server costs and actual costs of said background checks) to put together such a organization?

Report this comment

While I think some kind of BBB for the paranormal community is an absolute must if the field is ever going to attain credibility, I also think that oversight of the field should be spread out broadly among those who are the most experienced in the field. For example, the AMA consists of a lot of doctors from many different specialties who form boards to review the performance of certain other doctors. As a self-policing function, oversight of any group is going to become political.

The best way to circumvent too narrow a focus for “accrediting” paranormal investigators (and to lay to rest suspicions of bias) is for more practicing and respecting investigators to be involved in the process. The fewer groups that participate in this self-policing of the field, the less “moral weight” the oversight will exercise.

Nor is it necessary for the oversight organization to handle all of the background checks itself. Each group should undertake its own oversight of its own members and should share with other groups their conclusions and concerns about any unsuitable, untrustworthy, or criminal investigators. That information could then go to whatever organization is given responsibility for collecting and disseminating this information, not only for all reputable investigators, but for prospective clients.

Until a generally accepted oversight authority exists, paranormal investigations will continue to suffer from incompetents and frauds–and a general lack of respect for the whole field.

But, as Ron says, you have to start somewhere. Good luck with this admirable attempt to bring respectability to the paranormal field.

Report this comment