No Tape Reuse: A Better Reason Why

by Joshua Whitaker

Recently I had a discussion with some friends on the subject of tape reuse. All of us who do investigations in the paranormal field and use equipment like microcassette recorders and MiniDV camcorders know how expensive buying new tapes for every investigation can be. I have to admit that coming into this I was not an opponent of tape reuse. It seemed like a waste to me; as if I were throwing away money when I had perfectly good tapes that could be re-recorded. I didn’t buy into the concept of ghosting because as a child I often pretended to be a radio announcer and would record these imaginary ads over and over again on the same tape, never once did I hear those erased recordings. Why, then, would I want to throw away all of this money on new tapes every time I did an investigation? Allow me to explain.

There are a couple of forums that I love to visit because I just like to read what others have posted rather than make my own postings. I found I learned a lot more that way by casually working my way through the threads instead of repeating the same questions that others had posted. However, I am not infallible and human nature dictated that I ask at least one or two of those questions just to get my own answers. While reading through these posts I came across several similarities. One is that I haven’t found an example of ghosting yet many authors subscribe to the theory, and two I found that people who don’t subscribe to the ghosting theory run the risk of having their evidence discredited because of it. I’m amazed at how such a simple concept can cause dissention amongst investigators. So allow me to propose, if you will, a better reason against reuseing tapes; credibility.

Hear me out, not credibility because you jumped on the bandwagon that was popular at the time. During a meeting with two friends of mine we discussed the concept of tape reuse and it made me realize a very valid point that I already subscribed to regarding 35mm film versus digital; that point was a hardcopy of the evidence that is more tamper resistant. MiniDV and microcassette tapes offer a hard, physical version of the data that only requires a tab be pushed or broken off in order to copy protect it. In my mind these formats are also more resistant to tampering in general even before the copy protection is applied, anyone with some time and a PC can edit a digital video but it requires more to be able to edit any kind of true film. I admit this does not solve the expense issue but it at least gives us a solid reason other than “just because” to justify the expense and an answer to why it would maintain our credibility as investigators.

From now on if we’re going to jump on the bandwagon let’s make sure there’s a solid reason why that bandwagon exists. Is this to say my theory and I are right or that my ideas are foolproof? No. I am not exempt from making mistakes, but this reason makes sense in my mind and to me that’s all that matters. Nothing will change if we fail to put ourselves out there.

The views in the above article are the authors opinions and observations. This article posted on Feb. 5th, 2008, do not reprint without permission.

Return to Articles Home