Terms such as “pareidolia,” “matrixing,” “apophenia,” and “simulacrum” are terms paranormal investigators often use. These terms pretty much mean the same thing, they are; the imagined perceptions of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist, or, our mind making us see something that isn’t really there. Skeptics in particular, love to use these words to describe any evidence that we investigators may capture, because (I think) it is the easiest way for them to debunk our findings and to prove there point.
Setting aside the skeptics’ point of view, these words can in fact be used as true explanations for some of our findings. There are times that the images we see, or electronic voice phenomena we hear could be created not so much by a spirit but by our own subconscious minds or by a reflection, or by another team member. I am a true believer of this. Some people like to explain how the pixels in your camera are not set right, or the amount of light in a room can cause an anomaly. They talk about how sound waves work and because of how they work they prevent EVPs from being captured. I believe we as paranormal investigators should have a working knowledge of different types of sound waves, pixels, and things such as EMF fields, radiation fields, and any other natural or man-made occurrences that could affect our evidence.
Here is the thing; once we have gained the understanding on how such things work, does this knowledge make us believe our evidence/data is less credible?