Ghosthound Paranormal Investigations
Method first. Evidence on the record.
Established 1999
Mission
Ghosthound investigates reports of anomalous activity with discipline, documentation, and respect—for clients, for history, and for the limits of what can be known.
We seek to clarify, not to sensationalize. We document what we observe, rule out ordinary explanations when we can, and present findings so others can weigh the evidence. We do not promise proof of the paranormal. We promise method, honesty, and a clear record.
Our work serves people who are unsettled by experiences they cannot easily explain, and people who study hauntings, history, and field investigation with a critical mind. We leave a trail of notes, audio, images, and case files—so the trail can be followed again.
We seek. We document. We uncover.
Vision
A culture of paranormal investigation that is accountable: where claims are separated from data, where equipment is used with understanding of its limits, and where clients and the public can trust that their stories and locations are handled with care.
Core values
- Method first — Protocols, logs, and baselines before conclusions.
- Evidence on the record — What we share is documented; what we cannot support, we say so.
- Honesty about uncertainty — “Unexplained after review” is not the same as “proven spirit.”
- Respect for people and places — Permission, privacy, and dignity for clients, witnesses, and sites.
- Skepticism without contempt — Ordinary explanations are checked seriously, without mocking those who report.
- Safety — Physical safety, legal access, and environmental hazards come before any session.
- Stewardship of history — Site history and primary sources matter as much as a night of readings.
Professional standards
1. Scope of work
Ghosthound may review reports of activity; conduct historical research; perform on-site observation and instrumented documentation; and publish selected case summaries, EVPs, photographs, and articles for educational and archival purposes.
Ghosthound does not claim scientific proof of spirits or afterlife; offer exorcism or ritual as a primary service; guarantee activity or “contact”; or trespass or encourage illegal entry.
2. Client and witness relations
- Consent. Investigations on private property require informed, preferably written, permission from the owner or authorized representative.
- Privacy. Street addresses and identifying details of private clients are not published without separate written consent. Public historic sites may be named when access rules allow.
- Intake. We collect only what is needed to evaluate a request.
- No pressure. Declining an investigation, or asking for anonymity, does not affect how respectfully we treat a report.
- Clear expectations. We explain what a visit or review can and cannot accomplish before work begins.
- Follow-up. When we commit to a response, we do so in a reasonable timeframe, or we say we cannot take the case.
3. Field conduct
- Legal access only. No entry without rights of access. Cemetery and park rules (including hours) are observed.
- Minimize harm. No damage to structures, artifacts, headstones, or natural features.
- Team roles. Sessions use defined roles so documentation is consistent and contamination is reduced.
- Real-time logging. Observations are timestamped in a running log—not reconstructed solely from memory afterward.
- Baselines. Ambient conditions are noted before interpreting anomalies.
- Safety equipment. Carbon monoxide detection, lighting, and first-aid readiness are treated as core kit.
- Substance policy. Team members do not conduct sessions under the influence of alcohol or impairing substances.
- Client presence. When clients or residents are present, one liaison coordinates communication.
4. Evidence standards
- Chain of documentation. Source files are retained with date, location label, and session notes where possible.
- Mundane first. Mechanical, electrical, acoustic, photographic, and human sources are considered before anomalous claims.
- No fabrication. Evidence is never staged, faked, or knowingly enhanced to invent phenomena.
- Honest processing. Filters and crops used for clarity are disclosed when material is published.
- Classification language. We use careful terms (anomalous under review, inconclusive, likely mundane, unexplained after available checks) rather than absolute claims.
- Context. Historical research is presented separately from experiential reports and instrument readings.
- Review before release. Material for public release is checked for quality, privacy, and overclaim.
5. Equipment and methodology
- Instruments are used with knowledge of original purpose and known failure modes.
- We do not market devices as “ghost detectors.” They are tools for documentation and environmental observation.
- Preference is given to primary documentation tools: audio recorders, cameras, written logs.
- Methods evolve with better practice; we prefer field-tested approaches over spectacle.
6. Publication and media
- Public case pages, galleries, and EVPs are curated for education and archive—not fear marketing.
- Minors, trauma details, and sensitive personal data are handled with extra caution or omitted.
- Collaborators representing Ghosthound are expected to follow these standards.
- If we publish an error, we correct the record when practicable.
7. Conflicts of interest and integrity
- We do not sell guaranteed results or paid ranking of haunted locations.
- Merchandise and media support the project; they do not rewrite findings.
- Material conflicts of interest are disclosed when relevant to a public case.
8. Professional demeanor
- Represent Ghosthound with composure—curious, not performative.
- Critique methods and claims, not the dignity of people who report experiences.
- Humor, when used, stays dry and never targets victims of fear or grief.
Ghosthound has investigated and documented anomalous reports since 1999. We put method before myth, privacy before publicity, and a clear record before a good story. If we cannot support a claim, we will not dress it up as evidence.