7. If you could give advice to a person wanting to become a Spectrologist what would the advice be?
I love questions like this. Whether you mean the definition in science of spectrology which is from Chemistry and Physics meaning the science of spectrum analysis in any or all of its relations and applications or the folkloric terminology of spectrology which is the study of ghosts, phantoms, or apparitions, the advice is the same. The study of anything outside of the normal is a multidiscipline study. We have electrical engineers, chemical engineers, biomedical engineers, forensics specialists, acoustic engineers, audio engineers, meteorologists, astrophysicists, quantum and particle physicists, analytical specialists, psychologists and psychiatrists and more working on these issues. Read. Go to school. Study. Do. That's the formula for making a discovery and understanding the discovery you make.
8. Is there anything else you would like to share with the paranormal community?
Only that since my entry into the field as a serious researcher in 1976, I have seen good and much bad occur in the field. People need to realize they are being looked at and scrutinized for their work. If their work fails to hold up to scrutiny, then they have failed in their job. The field today is known for its pleasure seekers, glory hounds and haters. NO serious discovery has emerged from the current formula. None. Zero. Zip. Yet the scientific approach is yielding results daily. We know more about the human consciousness today than we did when the current TV fare of offerings premiered. Yet...those shows are still doing the same old dramatic nonsensical crap that continues to baffle any serious researcher in the field, like talking to boxes and flashlights and using instruments with blinky lights to act as a type of electronic Ouija Board. That is a formula for FAIL. Nothing but raw speculation comes from this, such as residual haunts are due to the rocks having memory, or energy storage that is somehow triggered by some feathery realms source. A wormhole on the other hand, would explain it as the visual observance of the holographic boundary of a wormhole connecting two places in time. That's right, observing the past through a sort of window in time. A solution both feasible and provable with math. Case rested.
6. How do you believe this will lead to evidence being harder to falsify?
Well I think you didn't mean this question how it comes across. Evidence has to be falsifiable in order to be valid evidence. Falsification is part of the criteria. But if you mean validity of the evidence, it is a huge leap. The data is stored in software that has checks and balance algorithms that prevent you from altering the evidence. Meaning if the values do not add up, it rejects the data. So the data is pristine in its proprietary format. Meaning simply, what you see is what you got, and you can't alter it artificially, either accidentally or on purpose. So the data is tamperproof while in its proprietary format. It makes it harder to share, because the software is required by those who wish to view it, but it’s doable. Most scientists have access to that type of software if they do analytical comparison work though. Most para teams do not. The software is expensive. Most teams use freeware, which is open source and not very tamper-proof.