How do investigators identify ghosts?

[MRT]

This is a fascinating question and yet one that few people discuss or write about. It seems to amount to looking at the history of a building and seeing if anyone fits the, usually vague, description (if any!) of the apparition. However, in a great many hauntings, there aren't even any sightings of apparitions at all. Indeed, most hauntings consist of a few odd noises and apparent object movement with no obvious connection to any kind of ghost at all. And yet ghost are confidently 'identified' in a lot of cases. It's all very odd!

[brianp]

This is a fascinating question and yet one that few people discuss or write about. It seems to amount to looking at the history of a building and seeing if anyone fits the, usually vague, description (if any!) of the apparition. However, in a great many hauntings, there aren't even any sightings of apparitions at all. Indeed, most hauntings consist of a few odd noises and apparent object movement with no obvious connection to any kind of ghost at all. And yet ghost are confidently 'identified' in a lot of cases. It's all very odd!

In some cases it's simply a matter of linking any supposed wooish happening with any violent or dramatic death at the same location.

The Theatre Royal, Newcastle (http://www.bpears.org.uk/temp/DSCF2618.JPG) has a "grey lady" who is always linked with the 19th century suicide of a young lass who threw herself from the "gods".

The Marquis of Granby pub at Streetgate (http://www.bpears.org.uk/Albums/Social/marquisintro/) near Gateshead has a spectre said to be the ghost of Joseph Leybourne who died violently there in 1865. Apparently he's unhappy that his murderer was never convicted - one guy was charged but acquitted, but the publican who'd been heard to shout that that he would "do for" Leybourne and "knock his soul out" was never even charged. Nonsense of course, the publican, William Laidman (aka "Bill o' the Bank"), was a relative of my wife's and couldn't possibly have done such a thing.;)

The Victoria Tunnel (http://www.bpears.org.uk/Albums/VictoriaTunnel/) is 2.5 miles long and runs 80 feet beneath the streets of Newcastle. It was built in 1842 to carry coal trucks from Spital Tongues Colliery to staiths on the Tyne. It was only used until 1860 and then lay empty until 1939 were it was converted into an air-raid shelter for 9000 people. The seven new shelter entrances made the tunnel an ideal short-cut between different parts of the city - and one man who was cycling alone through the tunnel on his way to work reported a ghostly apparition. Immediately it was linked with the only known death in the tunnel, that of William Armstrong Coulson, who died there in 1852 when he was hit by a coal truck while inspecting the tunnel.

So in most cases it's 1) Ghostly apparition alleged, 2) Look for suitable violent death, 3) Link the two. But I'm sure that in many cases - especially in pubs and other public venues - it's more often a case of 1) More visitors wanted, 2) Look for suitable violent death 3) Invent ghost 4) Link the two.

[MRT]

But I'm sure that in many cases - especially in pubs and other public venues - it's more often a case of 1) More visitors wanted, 2) Look for suitable violent death 3) Invent ghost 4) Link the two.

Ouch!
Nice ghost info!

[SimonC]

But I'm sure that in many cases - especially in pubs and other public venues - it's more often a case of 1) More visitors wanted, 2) Look for suitable violent death 3) Invent ghost 4) Link the two.

Or, in the case of one of my local pubs - 1) Get approached by Derek Acorah's production people 2) Invent ghost 3) Staff get their faces on the telly ;D

[DaveWood]

This is a fascinating question and yet one that few people discuss or write about. It seems to amount to looking at the history of a building and seeing if anyone fits the, usually vague, description (if any!) of the apparition. However, in a great many hauntings, there aren't even any sightings of apparitions at all. Indeed, most hauntings consist of a few odd noises and apparent object movement with no obvious connection to any kind of ghost at all. And yet ghost are confidently 'identified' in a lot of cases. It's all very odd!

Oddly enough my experience is rather different.

We're doing a census of hauntings in my town for a book. I'd say about 40-50 cases in the end, of which we've written more than half, and I know enough detail to comment on almost all of them.

There are only a small handful of cases where the 'haunting' has been linked with a historical figure.

In all these cases this is the result of pure folklore. The monk in the Churchyard (who hasn't been seen since 1930s), the grey lady of the important family (similar timescale) and the obligatory theatre ghost (less said about that the better), etc.

Obviously my town might not be representative, but what I'm seeing is that identifying a haunting with a specific ghost figure is an old-fashioned and folkloric thing that never seems to happen these days.

But... I do think there is a new fashion for TV programs to come along and reprise this practice. But touch wood that hasn't happened in my town yet :)

[bobdezon]

The answer is simple really. By linking an alleged haunting to a traceable historical figure you are humanising the story. They are just stories after all. If you investigated a location and thought you observed/witnessed phenomena and wrote your account of that its very dull. People may read it and say, well that place appears to be haunted etc. However if you observed/witnessed phenomena and traced a historical figure to the location you can attribute said phenomena to this deceased person. The tale could then be of the poor old scullery maid who was abused by the masters son, who fell pregnant and offered to exposed him to his father. In a fit of rage he pushed her heavilly pregnant figure over a balcony and claimed it to be an accident. Her soul tortured by the injustice of her death is said to wander the halls seeking retirbution/justice.

People can then empathise with this "ghosts" plight and it makes the tale much more interesting because we can all relate to it. Cue the lunatic paranormal group to appear at the location waving burning sage and receiting prayers of protection and imagining themselves encased in white auras as they offer to send the poor soul into the light and be at peace. Soon to be thrown out on their ass by the managment who cottoned onto the fact that a ghost on the premises can rake in thousands of pounds of dark tourism.

[bruno.j]

its all very simple - motive - and lack of historical research by the "play at it ghost hunters " - those of us ( serious and experianced investigators ) who DO take these factors into account inevitably find that there is a motive in calling in investigators ( as correctly identified by other posters ) and that in a LOT of cases the supposed historical connection just does not exist or is not provable - however once an "idea " is accepted - then the owners of the building will cling to it for whatever reason ::)

i have been to places where there have been reports of monks of a certain order present - only to find by accurate and painstaking research that the particular denomination was not even present in that part of the country / time period

i have seen investigations faked for TV cameras ( and i aint talking well known shows here )

i have been to council houses where the "haunting " was used as justification for a move to larger /better premisis by the occupants

and could give more examples - point being is that if you are going to do an "investigation " look first for motive - second for the "why " as in why should any supposed spirit /ghost be there - and thirdly - but most important - DO YOUR BLOODY REASEARCH !!!!

NOW I BELEIVE IN HAUNTINGS - but get really pissed off by play at it investigators - groups - and those who seek to exploit the paranormal for gain - but then my views on this are well known - by those who know me - or know of me O0;)

bruno.j

[bobdezon]

Sureky It would be better to actually observe an unusual phenomena first, rather than believing in a haunting? This would lead to a confirmation bias in your investigative report.

[bruno.j]

hello - please re read the post O0 - i state i believe in hauntings ( par ce ) - i do not go into an investigation believing a place is haunted (- come on for a forum that is preaching "critical thinking " some on here are woefully short of it )

a REAL investigator ( not a "play at it " or "fluffy bunny type " ) - works on a simple Principle - until all the facts and evidence are gathered - or until he/she witnesses any phenomena first hand ( and is hopefully able to record it ) - then all claims remain "unverifiable " - NOTE i do not say unprovable - just unverifiable

i work to standards taught to me by the fire service regarding evidence gathering -( and you have to get things right in that job !! )

it seems that the mistake has been made here by you of assuming that ALL investigators are slipshod in their methods - and this has nothing to do about weather someone uses the epithet "scientific" or not - it is common basic sense !!

who - what- when- why & how - ( not in any particular order ) the basic pillars of any investigation of any nature - then as i have said throw in the factors of motive - possible gain - historical fact etc - and you will have a pretty reasonable starting point for investigating any alleged haunting or phenomena

and before any one accuses me of "investigator bios " - one has to accept the "possibility " of anomalous phenomena - other wise investigating it is rather pointless - and one can just be an "armchair critic " and nay say everything that does not fit in with their personal beliefs - rather than getting off their butts and putting hours of research in both practical and historical - which CAN lead to a lot of frustration when the REAL motive for claiming a haunting is established ( or can of course be of great help when a genuine case is found )

as i have found - very few places WANT a proper investigation - after all - who wants an investigator who may not agree with their preconceived ideas ?? and is prepared to say "there IS nothing here " ( if that is the case ) the vast majority of cases of alleged hauntings are BS - i would say 80% - but it's the other 20 % i am interested in - they are out there - its just a question of finding them - and applying good old common sense to the way you decide which is which O0

Bruno .j

[bobdezon]

NOW I BELEIVE IN HAUNTINGS

You see this part, you stated you believe in hauntings, you did not imply nor infer a "per se" addendum. I read it like it was written, however if you meant something different, then perhaps the post should be edited to avoid confusion.


I shall now excercise my "critical thinking" and apply that to your post. It would appear you believe in hauntings. If you do not then why would you state that? However if you meant you believe in the possibility of a haunting, then perhaps you should edit your post again. If however you actually have evience of said haunting, then I would be more than happy to peruse your report and associated media.

There is no such thing as a "real paranormal investigator", because there is no academic criteria in becoming one. It is a hobby, and will remain one until some bright person develops a way to prove the existance of the paranormal. There may be facts to an alleged haunting, but there is certainly no evidence for such yet.

The standards that the fire service may have taught you are not really useful or condusive to paranormal investigation as far as I can tell That is unless the fire service teaches paranormal theories, the use of an emf meter and all the other associated things that some paranormal investigators like to do. I do know that firemen quite frequently walk around in the dark while on duty, perhaps that is what you meant?

I have made no error, I have not stated all paranormal groups do anything or are even slipshod in their methodology, you are shoehorning the facts to build an argument.

It would seem you have made an assumption regarding my "armchair sceptic" status. You do not know who I am or indeed what my interests are, or even what I may have done for the "paranormal field", I can tell by your reply that you took great offence at my post, which was to be fair not a jibe but rather sound advice.

Do you have a link to your "investigation" reports, so I can actually read your methodology for collecting "evidence"?

[bruno.j]

hi bob - i said "now i believe in hauntings " - i think that is clear enough - i believe there are such things as hauntings - i just don't believe that there are many GENUINE hauntings - not everything that go's bump in the night is a ghost ;);D

as to the fire service - the training given taught me how to be methodical - not to leap to conclusions - examine the facts - look for motives - be able to tell when people are not being truthful - or are mistaken in what they saw - given the evidence - don't forget fire investigation IS a science - and what you find /perceive /assume etc can have to be justified in a court of law - and clever lawyers will rip one to bits if you are talking bollocks - oh and it also taught me how to work in safety in the dark too ( very useful )

as to my reports - i don't issue them to anyone bar my clients - my work is confidential between me and them - like wise i don't publish any reports on websites or other media - in this way i pick up the jobs that the play at it - publicity hungry groups dip out on because the property owners don't want publicity - or their business spread all over the press etc - so sorry i have to decline your request on that basis and that basis alone O0 - otherwise i would gladly do so - i am not afraid of any one critiquing my methods

as to your assertion there is no such thing as a real paranormal investigator - just because there is no academic criteria - for becoming one - er so there is no academic criteria for becoming a stamp collector - or a star trek fan - but many people do - as you stated it is a hobby - but there is nothing wrong with applying standards to a hobby - at the end of the day , I don't do this to make a name for myself - i do it out of a genuine long standing interest in the subject - and i know at the end of the day i will never satisfy every one - so i don't try to

as to the other comments contained in the post they are of a general observational nature - NOT aimed at you personally - although you seem to have taken them that way by some of your responses - if you felt they where - please accept my apology as i had no intention of offending you - this is a difficult medium to get over intent in comments sometimes as i am sure you will agree

all the best

bruno .j

[bobdezon]

I am sure you could provide a report with the names dates and locations removed so it would appear to be anonymous. I have read thousands of such reports and they still contain all the relevant and pertinant information. I would appriciate it if you could make at least one report available. Please feel free to delete any information you like from the report, as long as it does not make it incomprehensible. Substitute any information as you see fit.

I had no intention of critiquing your report unless it was ill considered, erroneous or incorrect. I wanted to see how you conducted an investigation and what conclusion you eventually arrived at.

No apologies are necessary as I love a good debate, and that is my only motive for posting.

[DaveWood]

Sureky It would be better to actually observe an unusual phenomena first, rather than believing in a haunting? This would lead to a confirmation bias in your investigative report.

Quite right. There is one hell of a lot of bias in investigation reports I've seen.

Works both ways, of course, I sometimes have to work not to introduce 'spectical propaganda' to what I do ;-)

[DaveWood]

I am sure you could provide a report with the names dates and locations removed so it would appear to be anonymous. I have read thousands of such reports and they still contain all the relevant and pertinant information. I would appriciate it if you could make at least one report available. Please feel free to delete any information you like from the report, as long as it does not make it incomprehensible. Substitute any information as you see fit.

I had no intention of critiquing your report unless it was ill considered, erroneous or incorrect. I wanted to see how you conducted an investigation and what conclusion you eventually arrived at.

No apologies are necessary as I love a good debate, and that is my only motive for posting.

Valid request. No-one can ask others to accept their methods if they don't offer them up for viewing.

There does seem to be a trend emerging. Lots of groups are up-front about being seekers of the thrill, and display unashamedly their brief reports (comprising who experienced what, beeps and flashes of boxes and almost footnote style conclusions); there's something admirable about this. I might not agree with their methods, but at least they're up front about not being terribly serious.

Then there seems to be the flip-side of the trend. Groups that claim to be terribly serious but couldn't possibly reveal an investigation report, or even an example thereof. Needless to say this is coupled with the inference that their reports are far superior to the seekers of the thrill. Call me cynical, but I don't buy it. And besides, when all is said and done, you cannot accept a method unless you can see it.

Having said this I am 200% on board with the ethical considerations of not producing a full report. Sometimes this can relate to the name of a building, but I honestly feel it's more important to be sensitive to the privacy of individual eyewitnesses and even individual investigators.

We don't publish full investigation reports as a matter of course, for these ethical reasons. But we have offered up two examples from the last three years so people can see what we do.

[bobdezon]

I remember reading your report on the little chef a long time ago. It was a solid piece, if a little long winded ;). I see you used a medium though, what was the justification for that decision? I mean isnt it a bit "Ignotum per Ignotius"?

[DaveWood]

I remember reading your report on the little chef a long time ago. It was a solid piece, if a little long winded ;). I see you used a medium though, what was the justification for that decision? I mean isnt it a bit "Ignotum per Ignotius"?

Heh heh... our reports have cured many a client's insomnia.

But I think it's better - broadly speaking - to be long-winded and explicit, at least in the methodological stuff that most people don't ready anyway ;-)

I do have a rationale for use of mediumship... but I'm not going to tell you. Just kidding!

The method you saw for the Little Chef is broadly the same method that has been standardised and employed for the majority of our investigations over 2-3 years.

One of the main purposes of our investigation (as it has developed) is not to use investigative methods to assess the likelihood of the truth of a haunting claim, but to use haunting claims to assess the validity of investigative methods.

Thus the plan, next year, is to meta-analyse all the standarised results across these many investigations. Mediumship is just one method employed (and not during investigations events, as that would skew the rest of the findings) and will be analysed like every other method.

The applications are beginning to excite me, sad I know, for the sheer numbers we're working with.

For example: DC EMF meter readings occuring at the same time as experiences or orb photos. We can suppose currently, theoretically, that this is pure coincidence. But there's no way of knowing. But if years' of investigations, assidously recorded, can reveal the relative time prevalence of experiences, equipment readings and anomalous photos and assess the coincidental likelihood (on a case study basis at worst).

I'm gonna have a fun year methinks :D

[bruno.j]

hi again : i refer you to my previous post - my reports are confidential between myself and client .

i am willing to discuss methodology - and this is a truncated version please note :

initial contact with client - informal discussion of case

require client to fill in detailed questionnaire - and keep 1 month record of "occurrences " **

if satisfactory response returned - detailed historical research commenced on building /location/previous occupants etc commenced using publicly available sources and sometimes "other confidential " sources

interview all witnesses /others involved - children not interviewed unless strictly necessary - and then only in presence of parents/guardians - these interviews are taped /filmed

decide if wish to take case - if yes proceed - if no advise and close case - retuning all notes and recordings - no records will be kept in any form

baseline work - with particular attention to building - environmental and other issues - measure and draw up plan of site /building - EM sweep using available equipment - install night vision cameras etc as required

investigate at time of alleged occurrences - be this day or night

conduct vigil in room /rooms /areas of alleged activity ( this usually alone as i work alone or with one trusted other at most )

retire to evaluate evidence obtained - analyse footage - audio - photos obtained - consult as required

write report - include all above on DVD /CD - with conclusions

close case or continue further as required >

notes : i don't use psychics or mediums - dowsing etc - only evidence /phenomena directly witnessed by my self accepted at face value - all other regarded as "unverifiable " until proven otherwise ( usually not totally possible )

i don't do "motive " jobs - these are the ones where it is obvious from the outset that the owners /occupiers - seek to gain publicity /financial or other gain from such

i do not charge any client ( including materials ) - and if fee to investigate asked for - job refused .

** this usually sorts out the serious from the time wasters - and was particularly useful during the "MH phase " - when it was popular to "have the ghost hunters in " - i saved a lot of time money and effort by insisting on this being done - OK i lost a few jobs to the local play at it groups - but i also got a few very interesting and productive ones - with some "unexplainable " phenomena

those questioning my insistence on confidentiality - should be assured this is not trying to duck the issue - but how i work - have worked and will work - it's my trade mark if you like and IS appreciated / required by some clients

as i said a brief over view - do i proclaim a place haunted ? - simple answer no - as i have not found any yet that i would so class - i will go so far to say a place is "active " ( but only if it is ) - otherwise all other is "unverifiable "

that's the way i do it - you may or may not agree with my methods - but at least i feel them better than the

"go mob handed - medium/psychic in tow- emf wielding - no baseline work done - no research - all over in 12 hours -and if you don't find any thing - make it up - or even fake it for the cameras - tell the press everything - and of course proclaim our latest triumph of "research " on our website - travesties i have seen "::)

regards

bruno.j

[DaveWood]

Thanks for taking the time to outline what you do.

However despite a couple of nods to good practice this is more or less the standard 'ghost hunting' method.

Nothing wrong with that, per se, but what is perhaps most important of a method is the rationale.

What you describe here is a procedure, which is important, but why do you do what you do?

[bobdezon]

Hello Bruno, I have read your methodology and a few further questions spring to mind.

detailed historical research commenced on building /location/previous occupants etc commenced using publicly available sources and sometimes "other confidential " sources

What would you consider a satisfactory response? and why would you waste time researching the history of the premises before any phenomena was observed/witnessed by yourself or your colleague?
It seems to be a bit "cart before the horse".


as i said a brief over view - do i proclaim a place haunted ? - simple answer no - as i have not found any yet that i would so class - i will go so far to say a place is "active " ( but only if it is ) - otherwise all other is "unverifiable "

So you have no found any you would consider to be haunted, yet you believe in hauntings? Is there some reason for your belief considering you have had no experience of an alleged haunting at any of your locations? Also how would you describe a place as being "active" and what exactly do you mean by active?

Davewood:

One of the main purposes of our investigation (as it has developed) is not to use investigative methods to assess the likelihood of the truth of a haunting claim, but to use haunting claims to assess the validity of investigative methods.

Strange twist on normal proceedure, but admittedly I like that. By using the alleged haunting as an excuse to test the use and application of current theory and equipment you could soon determine what actually worked and what didnt. There is so many bad theories out there with zero basis in scientific research, yet they claim to be the current scientific theory. Its paradoxical and slightly annoying.

I watched an episode of ghost hunters tonight (I just like arguing with the TV) and they declared that poltergeist activity was because of limestone and quartz deposits coupled with prepubescent girls acting as a vessel for the power contained within said deposits. I cannot tell you how close I came to kicking the TV into the garden. Its simply nonsensical, and yet they are lauded as the "scientific paranormal group". Admiittedly I like TAPS for the entertainment value, but I have yet to read a research paper written by them published in a reputable scientific journal.


http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7162/tapssx2.png

[bruno.j]

hi bob -to answer your points >

i do the historical research to see what correlation there is between what is about to be claimed and what is fact - i thought that may puzzle one or two of you - but look at it this way and this is from an actual case i was involved with

place claims to be haunted - main feature monks of a particular order - historical research shows - no monks of that order in county during time period claimed - there was an other order present - but no evidence from credible source of them ever being associated with premises - this put to owner as historical fact - owner "chooses" to ignore this - my immediate conclusion - "motive" job ( promotion of business ) - later proved correct !! ( note i was not in charge of this investigation - but went along to see what would happen given above )

so you will see by doing some PRE research - you can sort out the motive and time waster jobs - or at least have an idea of what you are up against

next point :

i have a simple scale to work by :

"HAUNTED" - full body manifestations present - witnessed by self - recorded on video and photographs

"ACTIVE " - unexplainable phenomena present - witnessed by self - may be recorded

"UNVERIFIABLE "- all second user accounts and anything i don't see with my own eyes

"YEA RIGHT" - ELVIS - elves -fairies- the lock ness monster - honest politicians - skeptics ever believing woo's - the the stone house creek sea serpent - born again anythings - political correctness - Eco friendly car insurance - "honest" car dealers - etc etc etc ;D

so basically putting the epithet "haunted " on any case is a bold step to take - and even though i believe in the possibility of "hauntings" - i have yet to see a case i could honestly put that label on - may be one day ?? - or may be not

hope that answers your questions -

love the cartoon BTW ;DO0 - who said skeptics don't have a sense of humor

bruno.j

[bruno.j]

hi dave - why do i do what i do ?? - well i could ask you the same question ;D- - an honest answer is - because i have found ( for me ) it works - ( also see my answer to bob ) - i have investigated quite a few places - have had some unexplainable experiences - for which i don't have answers - and have seen stuff that i cant "prove " to anyone as i did not photograph or video them - although i did have a witness to - but sadly she has passed away ( my late wife - who was my research partner )

i have also dealt with cases that are worthy of MH'S attention - in that basically they are BS from the word go - or motive jobs

at the end of the day - i doubt if i will ever find all the answers - or be able to document a case that will "prove " the existence of hauntings to the satisfaction of everyone - so i have to do what i can to answer my own questions - and with that be satisfied

you see one can believe in possibilities - but also by using a degree of "cynicism" ( read realism ) - not be taken in by a lot of the BS and hype that surrounds the whole subject of the paranormal - or go the other way and be a total skeptic - in other words be open minded - odd approach for a "ghost hunter " ?? (i hate that term ) - well - guess i am not your average investigator ;)O0

bruno.j

[bobdezon]

My deepest condolences on your untimely loss bruno :'(

Do you have any samples of an "active" location report? or associated images or other media? Feel free to remove/distort any portion of an image or footage that may identify a location. I would be very interested in what you have collected as proof.

[bruno.j]

hi bob - yes i do - but as i have already stated (most of ) my research notes etc are not available for public viewing - also one must remember that i have been publicly called "delusional " and ignorant "- by the great dr.B - so you will understand that i am not prepared to release stuff only to be ridiculed and insulted by people

and you don't want to waste your time reading research from a delusional ignoramus - do you now ????????????;)

may be if some on this site stopped the name calling and the insults - then some of us genuine researchers would be more prepared to let others critique our work/findings - but no one likes being insulted so as long as this happens - then you really cant expect much cooperation -

as median knows ( hi median O0 ) whilst we WOO'S ( maybe if everyone stopped using that term too it would help ) and skeptics may strongly disagree at times - at least ways on some sites ( the site that must not be named because it is the worstest site on the Internet for instance ) conduct themselves in a more gentlemanly manner and do not allow direct insulting of posters - regardless of their views ( or if such happens the culprits are censured )

note: on the whole most here behave with decorum - which is to be applauded - regardless of differences in opinion - for which i thank you O0

the few always screw it up for the many ::) so sorry bob - no can do

bruno.j

[Dr B]

hi bob - yes i do - but as i have already stated (most of ) my research notes etc are not available for public viewing - also one must remember that i have been publicly called "delusional " and ignorant "- by the great dr.B

To be delusional on a matter means to hold a belief that goes against a demonstable truth. It is not a derogatory remark.

To be ignorant on a matter simply means not having enough information about the issue you are discussing. We are all ignorant of many issues that lie outside of our expertise. Again - it is not a derogatory remark.

It's just that science - lies outside your expertise O0 and I have demonstrated that numerous times here and at that other ridiculous site.

None of those comments are derogatory on a personal level - they are just, well, true.

[Dr B]

I do have a rationale for use of mediumship... but I'm not going to tell you. Just kidding!


There is no real justifiable rationale for using mediums in an investigation of a haunting as it goes against our good friend Occam. You are basically adding unecessary degree's of freedom. At the very least a researcher needs to make the case for why they are necessary.

It's best to be clear on whether one is investigating mediumship (interesting and worthwhile) or a haunting (interesting and worthwhile) - but not to clump two unknown's together - as all you get is greater confusion. O0


Thus the plan, next year, is to meta-analyse all the standarised results across these many investigations.

I would advise strongly against this - meta-analysis is not a research method - it is a statistical technique and an inherently flawed one as well. Stay clear of it. 8)



Mediumship is just one method employed (and not during investigations events, as that would skew the rest of the findings) and will be analysed like every other method.

Mediumship is not a scientific method for investigating hauntings and should be kept distinct from it.

[chillzero]

may be if some on this site stopped the name calling and the insults - then some of us genuine researchers would be more prepared to let others critique our work/findings - but no one likes being insulted so as long as this happens - then you really cant expect much cooperation -

Ever heard of the phrase "sticks and stones...." ?

You hold everyone else accountable for the words of one individual?

It seems to me that if you were confident of your work, you would show it, because even if it attracts critics, you would be able to respond to the criticisms, and still uphold your work. In fact, most papers of this type are put forward for critical review. It helps maintain accuracy and encourages discussion. Wouldn't you like to be certain you had no errors? Wouldn't you like to show where criticism of your work either helps you improve it, or proves your detractors wrong?

[MRT]

Bruno - I hope you don't mind if I point out one or two problems with your investigation method.

Firstly, you often do vigils on your own. The problem here is that if you hallucinate something you can't check with anyone else to see if they experienced anything similar. In the main, it is unlikely that two people will hallucinate the same thing (though not impossible, if they receive the same hallucinatory stimulation). Secondly, if you have collected all the information about the haunting and then do a vigil, you will be primed ie. you will know what to expect and so be subject to suggestion. A much better arrangement would be if you brought in two friends and accompanied them on the vigil but without telling them what to expect in advance.

Also, I'd like to state I too believe in hauntings!!

However, I should point out that this is using my own definition of hauntings. The dictionary definition of hauntings is based on tradition, culture and myth and is completely unhelpful in paranormal research. It is completely contradicted by real experience of hauntings. For instance, in a great many hauntings there is no actual apparition seen, so assuming that a ghost is involved is pure speculation! My own rough definition of a haunting would be:

"a series of unusual events, generally at a particular location, which are not imeadiately explainable by those witnessing them and therefore often ascribed to paranormal agencies"

I definitely believe in this type of haunting. No one can seriously deny that such things are reported regularly and that they form an identifiable phenomenon.

Note the importance of the witness in my definition. The events are not explainable by the witnesses but that does not mean that others could not explain them. Similarly, it is the witnesses who claim that the events have a paranormal origin whereas others may not.

[bobdezon]

So may replies here, I do hope you dont mind if I choose to lump them all together. :)

hi bob - yes i do - but as i have already stated (most of ) my research notes etc are not
available for public viewing - also one must remember that i have been publicly called "delusional " and ignorant
"- by the great dr.B - so you will understand that i am not prepared to release stuff only to be ridiculed and
insulted by people

and you don't want to waste your time reading research from a delusional ignoramus - do you now
Yes I fully understand you reasoning and apparant integrity with your research material. However my intend was to
offer an unbiased opinion on the material. I usually find that peer review helps everyone,and I may be able to add
insight to areas you may have overlooked. I realise you do not need my opinion to pursue your hobby, but
when exploring the unknown it is perhaps preferable to take advice.

may be if some on this site stopped the name calling and the insults - then some of us genuine researchers
would be more prepared to let others critique our work/findings - but no one likes being insulted so as long as
this happens - then you really cant expect much cooperation -

In a forum that specialises in rational debate, you must expect debate to part of the course. We are not children
here. Sometimes our witty retorts and accurate observations in methodological flaws and are not intended to
belittle or exclude. They are part of the rational discourse to avail the truth (where applicable) and improve
research. A genuine researcher should make all documentation available for peer review, as this helps the entire
field gain new and sometimes pertinant information which improves methodology (even if it is shown how not
to do it). That is unless this research is for entirely personal purposes, if this is so then you could never be a
"geniune researcher" as there would be no structure to catch any errors you made through lack of knowlege or
personal bias. This is the beauty of peer review. I agree though that a pure insult helps nobody, although to be
fair, I have not witnessed much of that here.

as median knows ( hi median ) whilst we WOO'S ( maybe if everyone stopped using that term too it would
help ) and skeptics may strongly disagree at times - at least ways on some sites ( the site that must not be named
because it is the worstest site on the Internet for instance ) conduct themselves in a more gentlemanly manner and
do not allow direct insulting of posters - regardless of their views ( or if such happens the culprits are
censured )
note: on the whole most here behave with decorum - which is to be applauded - regardless of differences in opinion
- for which i thank you
the few always screw it up for the many so sorry bob - no can do
bruno.j


Woo is a perfectly acceptable term in sceptical circles. I understand it is used in a derogatory fashion, but
according to its actual definition it is a perfect description for a certain percentile of the
population that is hard to dismiss.(see here http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html). We cannot prevent on any public
forum dismissal of ones views because by its very definition one should allow disagreements as part of free
speech. If you believed for example that female genital mutilation was normal and natural, and that it should be
allowed in a society then you are setting yourself up as a target because of your irrational and quite frankly
reprehensible views.
To be delusional on a matter means to hold a belief that goes against a demonstable truth. It is
not a derogatory remark.
This is very true, I think perhaps the problem arises when a conversation in a normal setting (not as a public
debate) the word delusional is used as a derogatory remark to dismiss the persons ideas. This cannot be said to be
true in a sceptical forum, as we have to be careful to use the correct terminology to accurately describe events
and observations.
To be ignorant on a matter simply means not having enough information about the issue you are discussing.
We are all ignorant of many issues that lie outside of our expertise. Again - it is not a derogatory
remark.
Again quite true and correct for the same reasons as those that apply above.
It's just that science - lies outside your expertise and I have demonstrated that numerous times here and
at that other ridiculous site.
None of those comments are derogatory on a personal level - they are just, well, true.
I have no idea of bruno's level of scientific expertise, but it would appear That Dr B (being an actual doctor)
would have a far greater scope of scientific matters than an amature would. I myself quite frequently consult with
professional people whos expertise greatly outweighs my own on certain subjects. This is done to assertain the
facts with current scientific methodology. Consultation is part of assembling a valid hypothesis or theory.To
discount credible expert testimony serves only to ensure failure.
There is no real justifiable rationale for using mediums in an investigation of a haunting as it
goes against our good friend Occam. You are basically adding unecessary degree's of freedom. At the very least a
researcher needs to make the case for why they are necessary.
To be fair Dr B he did state that "One of the main purposes of our investigation is not to use investigative
methods to assess the likelihood of the truth of a haunting claim, but to use haunting claims to assess the
validity of investigative methods"
Could it not be assumed that the use of a medium on an investigation is to test the validity of using a medium in
the first place, given the nature of the experiment? I think personally that the results will not be favourable
when the data is collated. I do not believe that a medium could help an investigation of any description unless
they just did what everyone else does (filming setting up equipment etc)
It's best to be clear on whether one is investigating mediumship (interesting and worthwhile) or a haunting
(interesting and worthwhile) - but not to clump two unknown's together - as all you get is greater
confusion.
I agree, there would be a plethora of confusing and conflicting information if the two were conducted at once. It
seems like "pop science" to me. I suppose it will all come down to the final conclusions when the report is done,
and if indeed its even made available publicly for peer review.
I would advise strongly against this - meta-analysis is not a research method - it is a statistical
technique and an inherently flawed one as well. Stay clear of it.
If the meta analysis is taken, and bad or flawed research is included it wont just effect one aspect of the
analysis but rather the whole study. You are quite correct Dr B on this matter. It simply doesnt work well on such
a small percentage of studies.
Mediumship is not a scientific method for investigating hauntings and should be kept distinct from
it.
True, It is not scientific, however this test could be the worlds first in actually providing proof that this
method is infact scientific methodology if the results are favourable. However I wouldnt hold my breath on a
favourable outcome based on the sheer amount of work carried out on this type of test before

[bruno.j]

hi all and thanks for all the replies - :smiley: as has been observed ( by bob ) the level of my scientific knowledge is unknown - i don't as it happens have any formal qualifications in scientific subjects - but that is owing to personal circumstance - in that i had to leave school at 15 and find employment to help support my family - i would loved to have the opportunities to study as the youngsters of today have - but it was not to be - but a life time of practical application has served me well - i probably could gain a ph.d if i had the time and money to be able to devote to it - but unfortunately the realities of life get in the way of wishes - as i am sure you all know - but i am not some thick moron who is incapable of learning - nor as i will state yet again "delusional " or prone to "hallucinations " the inference of which i find offencive on a personal level .

any way leaving this aside - MRT - yes i fully agree with what you say ( except for being prone to hallucinations :smiley: ) - it would be better to have reliable and stable assistants on investigations - but down this way - there are A: not that many interested in the subject - unlike in the more populous part of the country - and B: through experience of those locally who are - frankly i would rather have 2 rank skeptics with me - as i have yet to find any really sensible people i can TRUST - i will stress this point as some of the jobs ( well most actually ) are of the "confidential sort " and the owners of the properties contact me as i honer the confidential requirements -

difficult to control if working with others - and there are some groups who would think nothing of contacting owners if knowledge of a "possible " site became public knowledge - thus fouling my pitch if you like - and i am sure you all can understand this - it is hard enough to find decent sites to investigate without the play at it brigade moving in and discrediting any research even further

OK at the end of the day i realise that anything i say will be dismissed by someone - but as i have also said - i do this for my own interest - i am not out to make a name for myself or to gain anyone's approval - and neither do i proclaim my self any sort of "expert " - so if anyone wishes to regard me as a bumbling old fool who does not know what he is doing - well fine - at the end of the day - those who i have helped seem well satisfied - ( maybe they are delusional ?? ;D ) - and i am at peace with my own methods and conclusions .

CZ - sorry did not mean to infer that the whole was responsible for the few - as i have observed - insults benefit no one - and what some may regard as "jibes " others find insulting - you certainly have never insulted me in any way :smiley:

ah well not a lot more i can say really - we will all have to agree to disagree on this one - but that's life

bruno.j

[chillzero]

CZ - sorry did not mean to infer that the whole was responsible for the few - as i have observed - insults benefit no one - and what some may regard as "jibes " others find insulting - you certainly have never insulted me in any way :smiley:

Fair enough.

But the gist of my point was about reviewing your work:
In fact, most papers of this type are put forward for critical review. It helps maintain accuracy and encourages discussion. Wouldn't you like to be certain you had no errors? Wouldn't you like to show where criticism of your work either helps you improve it, or proves your detractors wrong?

[Dr B]

No one has personally insulted you at all - may be that's another delusional interpretation of the facts? ::)

You just need to think a little harder about what people really are saying, as opposed to what you immediately think they are saying before you go around propogating your own confusion.

This is meant as friendly advice O0 I will now duck out of this as I would not want to stiffle your debate with the others O0 I wish you well on your journey into real knowledge

On a serious note Brett (I take it you are Brett from PASSA?), I am glad you are here and discussing with people - as long as you understand that we critically examine arguments here - not people. O0 None of us here would tolerate anyone attacking anyone else or censoring your right to expression. Two things that distinguish us from those other forums....:-*

[Matt]

nor as i will state yet again "delusional " or prone to "hallucinations " the inference of which i find offencive on a personal level .

Why would you find that offensive? Has anyone actually said you're prone to hallucinations or merely that you haven’t taken steps to eliminate the possibility.

I have hallucinations every night - I call them dreams. Sometimes when not quite asleep I hear music as I fall asleep. Often I "double take" when I think I've seen something that's not really there. I'm subject to optical illusions.

I thought these were normal experiences shared by the majority of people.

However if you not only feel that you don't have such experiences but would be offended to have such a suggestion made then you're being offended by being compared to me.

Surely you wouldn't mean anything quite so arrogant and hurtful.

[MRT]

any way leaving this aside - MRT - yes i fully agree with what you say (except for being prone to hallucinations :smiley: )

Everyone is prone to hallucinations in certain circumstances eg. when under extreme stress, when ill, from drugs, from certain magnetic fields, etc. (NO, I'm not saying you take drugs, it's just an example!:smiley:).

Then there are things like optical and sonic illusions that also affect everyone. These aren't exactly hallucinations but you can certainly be tricked into seeing or hearing things that aren't there by certain situations.

However, my main point is this - from a scientific point of view it doesn't matter if you are prone to hallucinations or not. If you have just one hallucination in your life but it happens to be when you're on a vigil, you may end up convinced you saw a ghost when you didn't! Hard though it may seem, this is the view that scientists will take. Humans are rotten recorders of events and so, with just one observer, you are leaving yourself open to anything you report being open to doubt. Knowing what you are 'supposed' to see makes it far worse! Effectively your vigil reports will be seen as just anecdotal.

[bruno.j]

hi dr.B ( i take it i am addressing Jason :smiley: ) - yep you have it in one - but i am just Brett - the fact i happen to post on the passa forum is irrelevant to the discussion - i post on various forums - not all connected with the paranormal - as i am sure most of us do - however of course i will be condemned by some for this - one should however be careful of judging someone by the company they keep O0- as you will know by your experience of ( those other forums ) - i do not always agree with them nor they with me .the same as will happen here - that is a fact of life - and the whole point of discussion

fine on your advice -for which i thank you and for your comment that you are glad i am here - as with all things in life we can all jump to conclusions based on faulty thinking and lack of evidence - it all depends where on bases ones "start point " and applies equally to all ,the danger is assuming that because one has "expertise"in one field - one has it in all fields - which would be a patently delusional viewpoint -

matt - no i would not be so arrogant or hurtful - if you class dreams as hallucinations - then that's fine by me - i have no personal beef with that - i always thought that dreams where the way that the brain tried to make sense of the days events - akin to defragging a computer hard drive - but i am sure that this interpretation will be dismissed as fallacious - but then again i am no expert on the working of the brain or mind - i must confess i have never heard music prior to falling asleep ( unless it is the local students playing theirs at all times of the night ;D ) - interesting !! , can i ask ( as an aside ) - if you had a dream that warned you of some impending event - and that came true - would you class that as an hallucination - or precognition ?? ( sorry folks i do tend to go off on the odd tangent ) or neither ??

anyway - again nothing personal on my part towards you :smiley:

MRT -good points as usual - as far as the anecdotal bit go's well they will have to just be that as far as science is concerned - again i stress i am not in this to "prove " anything to any one - i express a personal viewpoint - which as is demonstrated some will agree with or dismiss as they see fit - is this so wrong ?? - if i came on here and said that my view was right and everyone Else's was wrong - then i would be worthy of censure - but as i only offer an opinion based in many cases on what my own senses have perceived - OK they may be at fault at times - or be misled - or i may misinterpret things ( who is NOT guilty of that ?? - he /she has not been born yet ) - but also one always has to consider the possibility that regardless how strange /unlikely etc any observation is - it may actually be correct

any way - this thread has got way off course -( partly my fault ) shall we return to the point in question "how do investigators identify ghosts " ?? - well as i have never "seen " a ghost **( i live in hope ) - i cant answer that directly - and also it is something of an open question - are we referring to identifying a "persona " eg an historical figure ( who may be a ghost ) - or are we referring to establishing that what has been perceived , is a ghost and not something else ?? ( or have i just misunderstood the original question ? )

regards

bruno.j ( a.k.a Brett - not of any particular website ) ;D

** and by this i mean the classic full body manifestation variety BTW

[MRT]

any way - this thread has got way off course -( partly my fault ) shall we return to the point in question "how do investigators identify ghosts " ?? - well as i have never "seen " a ghost **( i live in hope ) - i cant answer that directly - and also it is something of an open question - are we referring to identifying a "persona " eg an historical figure ( who may be a ghost ) - or are we referring to establishing that what has been perceived , is a ghost and not something else ?? ( or have i just misunderstood the original question ? )

I'm refering to when someone reports a ghost and then, by some mysterious method, investigators or journalist who, like you, haven't seen it either, nevertheless sometimes come up with a name. Books of the 'ghosts of somewhereshire' type always seem to be full of such named ghosts. I've even got a book, published years ago, which is a Who's Who of ghosts!

[bobdezon]

On two occasions I have personally seen what you would call a full body apparition which I can prove to be an actual apparition (in the true sense of the word). I can also prove it was not the ghost of a deceased individual.

The second occurance I have no such information on, but I have a witness to attest to my claim, they also witnessed it and we compared exactly what we had seen and it was an identical description with no embellishments or fuzzy detail

I make no claims to be a professional ghost hunter/paranormal investigator either.

[MRT]

Any more details, please? Sounds interesting ...

[DaveWood]

It's best to be clear on whether one is investigating mediumship (interesting and worthwhile) or a haunting (interesting and worthwhile) - but not to clump two unknown's together - as all you get is greater confusion. O0


They're not lumped together, per se. Mediums do not attend investigations. More of a side study.


I would advise strongly against this - meta-analysis is not a research method - it is a statistical technique and an inherently flawed one as well. Stay clear of it. 8)


I'm happy to have different views on this one. I think there are a lot of worthwhile applications for looking at results across time. I don't hold much faith in results of an individual event.


Mediumship is not a scientific method for investigating hauntings and should be kept distinct from it.

Who said it was? ;-)

[bobdezon]

Im afraid that my reports are confidential between myself and my client O0 but considering I am also the client I can forsee a loophole which may work to your advantage here ;)

The first occasion was 4 years ago, me and the mrs were in the bedroom wrapping christmas presents. Our daughter who has just turned three was tucked up in bed so we had a little while to complete our task.

As we were (*kids spoiler alert) wrapping the presents I heard a noise like footsteps by the bedroom door which was open. I seen clear as day my daughter standing there looking at me, she paused for a second (literally half a second) and then continued down the hall towards the bathroom. I was convinced she had rumbled the age old scam and I was already mentally forumlating excuses as I threw the blanket over the presents.

The mrs quite alarmed at my sudden flurry of activity asked what was wrong. I said "Ive just seen the kid walk past the door and look in, I think shes taken herself off to the toilet". I stood at the doorway and looked down the landing to the bathroom door waiting for her to come back out so I could carry her back to bed (she had a tendancy to bump into walls when half asleep). As I waited I heard her sigh, but from the wrong direction. Obviously puzzled by this aural pareidolia I entered her bedroom to see her fast asleep in bed.

To say I was confused was a bit of an understatment. I told the mrs she was back in bed, the mrs was like wtf? I said I dont know. She asked what Id actually seen, I started to collect the memory into a cohesive chain of events. Then I remembered a detail which made me a little cold.

When she had walked past the door and looked inside I she had no face. When I say she had no face, it wasnt like there was a cavity where the face had been I mean there was just nothing, no features at all, like a mask. Its hard to grasp what I mean in text alone so I will provide an artistic rendition I have just made to illustrate my point. Fortunately I know my way around photoshop.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4389/facehu7.jpg

At the time I thought nothing of it believe it or not, I just knew it was my daughter. I felt no uneasiness etc usually associated with tales like this one. To me it had seemed natural. It was only when recollecting exactly what I had seen did I recall this one particular oddity.

You are free to make of that tale what you wish, I stand by my statement and I have not embellished any details (my inner sceptic would kick my ass if I did)

My daughter is still very much alive so what I seen could not be called a ghost (in the haunting/paranormal sense) I have no idea how you would class that.

The second occurance was about two years ago. I was in my parlour where I keep my computer. The mother in law had asked me "do you want a cup of tea? if you do bring me your cup" I stood up cup in hand and walked to the kitchen door which is right next to the parlour door. I didnt enter the kitchen as there was a locked babygate that simply wasnt worth the hassle of opening. I passed the mother in law my cup and turned back around to reenter the parlour. I seen a man about 6ft tall with his right side towards me. his neck was bent forwards so I couldnt see his face as the doorframe to the parlour partially obscured it. He walked right into my parlour.

I turned back around to the mother in law and asked her ""did you see that?" and she was standing there eyes wide open fixated on the parlour door. She said "what? the man who just walked in the parlour?" I said yes. I thought someone had walked in off the street as I rarely lock my front door. I handed her my cup and walked into the parlour ready to kick some serious ass and skulldrag this cheeky bastard out of the house before I disposed of his remains in the street. There was nobody in there. The room has once entrance/exit and two (locked at the time) windows.

I recall the man was about 6ft tall wearing a white longsleeved shirt with a thin blue/grey pinstripe and brown possibly corderoy trousers and a thick (4 inches possibly) brownn leather belt. I do not recall details of shoes or even legs below the knee. His hair was cut so short as to be shaved at the back of the neck, the front I could not see because of the doorway blocking my view. He appeared to have a motion blur too like he was stepping forwards really fast or was partially transparent. The "apparition" was in full colour and seemed to make no discernable sound.

I have no explanation for either events, I know we have psychologists who will probably explain something I have overlooked, but being the sceptic I am, I find it hard to rationally explain what I witnessed. I am my own worst critic.

[bruno.j]

hi MRT - ah now this is more a field i can comment on :smiley: - and go's back to my point about pre investigation research - as has been correctly stated looking at the history of a site prior to an investigation can cause expectation - and i have witnessed this on a few investigations i have taken part in - where as i personally look at possibilities of "who" is going to be present to see if the "expected ghosts" are involved - and thus judge the veracity of claims by this factor - vis if x,y & z are known to have resided there and x,y,&x are "named entities " present ( especially if psychics /mediums are involved ) - then i get suspicious

and one of the failings i have found with many investigations is - that a,b,c are named -but subsequent investigation proves that a,b,&c - where never even there - or not connected with the place - see my comments about monks ::) - it is very easy to put a name to a "ghost " - as one does not usually have to prove it - and can basically dream up any old tosh - and some will believe it - and of course as many just "move on " to the next investigation without ANY follow up work whatsoever - just accepting the word of their resident psychic /medium ..........................

however diligent historical research - prior to the investigation ( as i do it ) can eliminate some of the usual suspects ( i am always suspicious when any ghost or entity turns up on cue ) - of course it can be argued that research after the event can be "made to fit " - for instance - if we take Hampton court - now who would you "expect " to be haunting it ?? - and if a shadowy half manifestation is observed - who do you think it will be named as ?? - i think you see my point here

so identifying any apparition - unless it stops and speaks to you and literally says "i was Fred bloggs " or who ever - if virtually impossible - OK "educated " guesses can be applied as to identities - but as to proof ?? - difficult

as to the press ( whom i have little time for ) - well just remember what their motto should be : -" NEVER LET THE TRUTH GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY O0 "

and having seen an investigation reconstructed ( although not stated as such ) on my local TV station - with people who where not even AT the original event - being quoted as "experts " - it has certainly coloured my opinion of much reporting ::) ( that involved monks too funnily enough )

and you wonder why i tend to work alone with crap like THIS going on ?? - at least ways i try and keep it honest - scientifically verifiable may be not - but honest yes , as who am i fooling other than myself ??

regards

bruno.j

[bruno.j]

hi bob :

quote: I'm afraid that my reports are confidential between myself and my client

touche O0

interesting experiences though 8) thanks for sharing them

regards

bruno.j

[wooo_oops]

The first occasion was 4 years ago,
(...)
I have no explanation for either events, I know we have psychologists who will probably explain something I have overlooked, but being the sceptic I am, I find it hard to rationally explain what I witnessed. I am my own worst critic.

This is somewhat erm, OT, but I'm fascinated by this. I also have had similar experiences which I can't properly explain.

If you don't mind... don't we love to tell our stories? O0

I was passing the time of day with an old chap (one of my neighbours) one day whilst walking the dog in our local park and a woman came toward us. She was interested in my dog and was trying to pat her on the head - sorta thing - but our dog has never been one for that much fuss from strangers and didn't really take any notice - as usual. I noticed also that the old guy wasn't really engaging with this woman either. She seemed a bit 'faraway' -is the only way I can describe it. (In retrospect she seemed to be...not well...in the head dept.??? She made a few wistful comments and tried to fuss the dog, she walked away and I carried on walking the dog through the park and up the road, after saying g'day to both of them.

After about 20 minutes, I came back through the park and saw the same woman walking toward me from a bunch of trees about 20 yards away. After a few secs I looked away, as you do, not staring at her. But when I looked up again, she'd gone. I checked behind the trees. There was nowhere she could have gone to. I was completely flummoxed as to what had happened and assumed that I had hallucinated her. For no reason! Wha?

The other one was when I was working in a reputedly haunted building - the reputation of which I had a hand in promoting for tourism's sake. (OK, shoot me, I was earning money and stuff.) I didn't believe a word of it though. But...ha ha. One day I thought I heard my colleague by my side as I was working at my desk on the computer. I looked up expecting to see him and immediately saw a bearded gentleman looking over my shoulder. (He wasn't really there, but the impression I got was incredibly detailed...The original owner of the building was a bearded Victorian chap and it was him I tell you!). I have to add that my colleague was also of beard. But it wasn't him. Honestly.:-[

Both of my 'hallucinations' could have been based on memory. The first was a 'direct' memory -I had just seen this woman...and the second was based on my imagination and recollection of old photographs. Other than that I have no idea why or how I had these experiences.

[bruno.j]

some more interesting experiences O0 would you like ( just for the sake of argument ) wooo-oops to consider this scenario as a "possible " explanation " for the bearded gent one ?

you admit you where assisting in the exploitation of the buildings "alleged " haunted status to promote business - fine you have been honest in this O0 - but what IF the "impression " you saw /hallucinated /perceived ( add any other appropriate epithet ) - was in fact the original owner of the building giving you a little message ? - vis : hey don't knock it - i am still around - and i don't like you using my "ghostly" presence to encourage trade when you don't believe in such things - shows a lack of respect - you could at least "acknowledge" the possibility of me ??

one to ponder - OK i know you will probably dismiss this a pure fantasy - but interesting to consider alternatives given the "strong " impression you received - it must have come from somewhere and for a reason

i am not asking you to change your beliefs - just consider all the options O0

regards

bruno.j

[median]

you admit you where assisting in the exploitation of the buildings "alleged " haunted status to promote business - fine you have been honest in this - but what IF the "impression " you saw /hallucinated /perceived ( add any other appropriate epithet ) - was in fact the original owner of the building giving you a little message ? - vis : hey don't knock it - i am still around - and i don't like you using my "ghostly" presence to encourage trade when you don't believe in such things - shows a lack of respect - you could at least "acknowledge" the possibility of me ??


Which,forgive me, Brett is opting for an elaborate explanation (based on a priori 'this is a haunted location') over a more simpler one (such as environmentally induced hallucination, memory embellishment, sensory depression based upon fatigue)?

Regards, as always

Median :smiley:

[Dr B]

They're not lumped together, per se. Mediums do not attend investigations. More of a side study.

Of mediumship or hauntings?


I'm happy to have different views on this one. I think there are a lot of worthwhile applications for looking at results across time. I don't hold much faith in results of an individual event.

Firstly, a meta-analysis tells you nothing about 'over-time' - it merely pools results. In many ways you lose the longitudinal richness. It is also conceptually flawed and has rarely led to any useful insights. So I think you are looking in the wrong direction for your answers.

Re the comment on individual events - who does? You can use techniques where different cases studies can be compared over time (just not pooled over time) - but again there are pitfalls.

As it is so time consuming - you need to know exactly what you are doing before you set off down this route.

As you know, I have been doing longitudinal stuff for 20 years - it is very time consuming. However, my research questions do not depend on pooling results, and are not compromised by an in depth examination of singular investigations.

It's all about the questions you want to ask 8)

[Matt]

matt - no i would not be so arrogant or hurtful - if you class dreams as hallucinations - then that's fine by me - i have no personal beef with that -

I suppose sleeping dreams are not usually decribed as hallucinations in everyday usage, however they seem to fit the description. The occassionally hearing music as I fall asleep is an auditory form of hypnogogic hallucination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination#Hypnagogic_Hallucination).


i always thought that dreams where the way that the brain tried to make sense of the days events - akin to defragging a computer hard drive - but i am sure that this interpretation will be dismissed as fallacious

I don't see why. It seems to be the standard lay explanation I'm familiar with. I understand it as sorting through the days memories deciding which one to store in long term memory and which to dispose. Disposed memories are experienced in rapid sucession and the brain attempts to form them into a story. It's certainly not incompatible with the term hallucination.


- but then again i am no expert on the working of the brain or mind - i must confess i have never heard music prior to falling asleep ( unless it is the local students playing theirs at all times of the night ;D ) - interesting !! ,

It's apparently not uncommon. 24.8% of the sample in this study (http://www.sleepeval.com/hallucinations.htm) reported simlar experiences.

- can i ask ( as an aside ) - if you had a dream that warned you of some impending event - and that came true - would you class that as an hallucination - or precognition ?? ( sorry folks i do tend to go off on the odd tangent ) or neither ??


I would search for a rational explanation as a first recourse. I don't remember many of my dreams and those memories that I do have are often prompted by similar events the following day.

You use the term "warned"

What apart from the events described in the dream eventally transpiring as a waking experience would make it a "warning" as opposed to a regular dream.

[Dr B]

It is correct to view dreams as hallucinations. This is how they are viewed in science. Laberge has some nice work on dreams for those interested. O0

[wooo_oops]

O0some more interesting experiences O0 would you like ( just for the sake of argument ) wooo-oops to consider this scenario as a "possible " explanation " for the bearded gent one ?

you admit you where assisting in the exploitation of the buildings "alleged " haunted status to promote business - fine you have been honest in this O0 - but what IF the "impression " you saw /hallucinated /perceived ( add any other appropriate epithet ) - was in fact the original owner of the building giving you a little message ? - vis : hey don't knock it - i am still around - and i don't like you using my "ghostly" presence to encourage trade when you don't believe in such things - shows a lack of respect - you could at least "acknowledge" the possibility of me ??

one to ponder - OK i know you will probably dismiss this a pure fantasy - but interesting to consider alternatives given the "strong " impression you received - it must have come from somewhere and for a reason

i am not asking you to change your beliefs - just consider all the options O0

regards

bruno.j

Hey there bruno/brett.:smiley:
Thanks for having a go at that, although you already said I'd probably dismiss this 'alternative' explanation. I think the key thing here is that, as the witness, I have the event in my mind as far as I remember it occurred and so far, haven't actually considered any explanation for it seriously, which is why I used it as an example. You have given me a possible explanation which is based on your own interpretation of the data and you have already assumed that it was a ghost because you gave the thing an actual reason for being there.

Since I tend to work these things out based on my knowledge of how the brain works (which is limited I can tell you, but not so much that I wouldn't have at least a suggestion of an explanation), I haven't entertained seriously the possiblity that I saw the ghost of the owner. It's more complicated than that. Re-telling the story has forced me to look at it in a different way and ask myself questions about; the environment, what I was doing at the time, what was happening in the room at the time, and I come up with this explanation:

I was working hard at the computer doing the books (concentrating), bright sunny day, two other people in the room but on the other side to my left and talking quietly, window open to my right. I heard a noise which seemed close by my right ear (it could feasibly have come from the open window) but as I was absorbed in work, it was ambiguous but had the effect of making me think there was a person there - which gave rise to a fleeting 'sense of presence' - like you do. When I looked up, my brain 'filled in' (confabulated)? what it was expecting to see - my colleague who has a beard. But because I 'knew' that he was over the other side of the room my brain immediately offered a perception of someone else - someone not dissimilar to the man in the photograph which I saw most days at work- a bearded Victorian chap. I had effectively 'named' my ghost already!

How's that?

[bruno.j]

hi Matt - thanks for the references - i will have a look at those O0
i meant warning - in the sense of the dream containing some reference to possible impending danger - for instance - NOT undertaking a journey of some description

dr.b - references please - never let it be said i wont look at all the evidence - dreams are an interesting area - most i never remember - those i do - i can not usually figure out - and some are just down right weird - a link to the work mentioned will be appreciated

brett /bruno

[Dr B]

dr.b - references please - never let it be said i wont look at all the evidence - dreams are an interesting area - most i never remember - those i do - i can not usually figure out - and some are just down right weird - a link to the work mentioned will be appreciated
brett /bruno

Brett - I did give you a clear reference in my post above (Laberge) - all you need to do is enter 'Laberge and dreams' into Google and / or Google scholar and you will land at what you want. I have provided all the information you need.

That work is also of good quality rather than alot of the other nonsense spoken about dreams.

One word of warning - make sure you get the right LaBerge as there are many in psychology. O0 (you want Dr Stephen Laberge)

[MRT]

... and one of the failings i have found with many investigations is - that a,b,c are named -but subsequent investigation proves that a,b,&c - where never even there - or not connected with the place - see my comments about monks ::) - it is very easy to put a name to a "ghost " - as one does not usually have to prove it - ...

The problem is, historical research can never identify everyone who has visited, or in some cases even owned, a building. What is more, spiritualists can, so they say, contact 'spirits' pretty much anywhere, anytime (no matter where they lived or died). Why shouldn't a ghost be a visiting 'spirit' that never had anything to do with the building when they were alive? You're probably thinking this is all starting to sound very silly - don't blame me, I didn't think this stuff up!

Personally, I wouldn't bother with any general historical research at all with a haunting! As far as I'm concerned, if someone reports something odd at a site what I'm interested to know is what caused that report. In many cases, hauntings don't produce apparition sightings at all. A haunting, to me, is just a report of some strange goings-on at a particular location - it is only a cultural convention that links it with ghosts! The only historical research I would bother with is to see who has, or has not, reported anything similar before. Notice the 'has not' bit - sometimes people live for years in a house completely untroubled only for subsequent occupants to report all sorts of stuff! That's a very interesting clue!

So, if you want to find out all sorts of interesting stuff about monks and whatever, that's fine, but I don't think it really goes far towards explaining what is behind a particular haunting.

[brianp]

I've only ever encountered one "haunted" house, but never for one second have I entertained the notion of it being in any way paranormal.

Being a family-history buff I'd always been intrigued by Broaddale House, Rookhope in the Pennine foothills where many of my Brown ancestors had lived from 1780 to 1871. It was there, in a barn, in 1863, that hard-drinking lead-miner, Francis Pears, first bedded the young granddaughter of the household, my gt gt grandmother, Jane Ann Brown - the "prettiest masher in the dales" as Francis later described her in one of his letters. Just one of the many events - happy, sad, tragic, mundane - which happened at Broaddale House and were recorded in church registers, wills, letters, notebooks, family bibles etc or merely became the stuff of family legend.

For some reason I'd assumed that Broaddale House was long gone, but one day in 1976 I was looking for something else on an OS Pathfinder map and I spotted it, all alone, high on the fells above Rookhope. I jumped in my car and 90 minutes later found myself in the tiny, remote village of Rookhope. Locals directed me to Lintzgarth Farm and the farmer there told me that Broaddale House was unoccupied apart from sheep, but it was structurally sound and nobody would object if I had a look around. He pointed to a rough track which disappeared over the horizon - clearly not a place to drive - so, after a short hike, I reached Broaddale House.

A farmstead would be a better description than a house as it consisted of a dwelling with a large enclosed yard at the back containing a barn and other non-domestic outbuildings. What a place! The views were magnificent - rolling fells as far as the eye could see in all directions - and absolutely nothing to indicate that this was the late 20th century. Broaddale House was abandoned and desolate, but it was a timeless place and the buildings and scenery were surely exactly as my ancestors would have known them.

I looked around the yard, still no reminders of the twentieth century. I checked out the netty, still quite functional, if functional is the word for an ash-closet. And I went into the barn. It was so easy to imagine Francis and Jane Ann frolicking in the hay which was still stacked high against a wall. But enough of the day-dreaming, I'd come to see the house.

There was no access from the yard, but around the front I found a door ajar and went straight in. I didn't get very far - suddenly I felt very frightened. Something was there, not somebody, something. It was as if the house was alive and didn't want me there. I tried to tell myself I was being bloody stupid, but the feeling was overpowering and I began to feel dizzy and disorientated. I left, and nothing in the world would have got me in there again. I was planning to take photographs inside the house and in the barn, but I made do with a few of the outside and hurried away.

http://www.bpears.org.uk/temp/broaddale_1.jpg
http://www.bpears.org.uk/temp/broaddale_2.jpg
http://www.bpears.org.uk/temp/broaddale_3.jpg

When I got back to Lintzgarth Farm to pick up my car, I again met the farmer and told him what had happened. He found the whole thing very funny and said he'd never experienced anything himself. But he did say that his dogs wouldn't go into the house and the farmhands weren't very keen, so apparently I wasn’t alone in finding the place disconcerting.

I was quite at a loss to explain what happened. I'm not given to letting my imagination run wild – just a few months later I explored a 165 year-old tunnel deep beneath Newcastle (http://www.bpears.org.uk/Albums/VictoriaTunnel/) with only rats for company, and was fine. Yet there I was on a lovely spring day in a peaceful, unthreatening situation and I was shaking with fear. The house itself wasn't dark - sunlight streamed through the windows and I could clearly see a fireplace, a staircase, lots of hay and signs of sheep, nothing intrinsically scary at all. I was reveling in nostalgia, true, but I was feeling very upbeat and was looking forward to exploring the house. Yet suddenly I was hit by the most terrifying feeling I've ever experienced.

The only possible explanation I’ve found was suggested recently by someone on another forum (if it was this one, apologies for the repetition) and that was low-frequency sound, ie infrasound, which has been shown to cause feelings of nervousness and discomfort as well as a sense of a presence in the room. (see here (http://science.howstuffworks.com/ghost3.htm) and here (http://www.randi.org/jr/10-29-2000.html)). I subsequently found that the whole area was riddled with long-abandoned (closed 1932) lead-mine workings and one main passageway ran directly beneath Broaddale House. So what? Well it so happened that in 1976, indeed right up to 1981, that very area was being reworked to extract fluorspar from the vicinity of the old lead-ore veins. This was done from a recently opened mine near Lintzgarth Farm called Redburn Mine (http://www.aditnow.co.uk/mines/Redburn-Fluorite-Mine/). I was able to confirm that they did have ventilation fans serving these workings, opening up the possibility that there was indeed infrasound present in that house and the possibility that it was the cause of my frightening experience. Far from conclusive, of course, but it is nice to find a possible mechanism to explain this apparently inexplicable event.

[DaveWood]

It's all about the questions you want to ask 8)

Always is! I'll be in touch.

[bruno.j]

hi again - dr.B - thanks for that and the caution about getting the right gentleman - appreciated O0

brianp - interesting tale - good photos too O0


MRT said " So, if you want to find out all sorts of interesting stuff about monks and whatever, that's fine, but I don't think it really goes far towards explaining what is behind a particular haunting. "

ah but it can give you a lot of clues as to what is probably NOT behind any claimed haunting ;) - some times looking at things in a way that many would consider "cackhanded " as we say down here - can pay dividends - but as always each to their own ( way of doing things ) that is :smiley:

regards to all

brett ( a.k.a bruno.j )

[bruno.j]

hi woo oops - no problem - it is great that whilst you have made your personal decision as to what you experienced - you ARE willing to at least consider an alternative explanation O0

and it is also fantastic that some of you are prepared to talk about experiences that you have had - OK again you have either decided on a cause or at least (again ) are prepared to listen to "alternative " explanations

at the end of the day - we all have to make a decision as to what we witnessed - perceived etc - and providing "we " are happy with that - does it REALLY matter what anyone else thinks ?? - are they going to think you a better person just because you agree with THEIR viewpoint ?? - i would suggest not - maybe we have all become too obsessed with how others view us in today's society ??

( now there's a topic for discussion ) :ponder:

that is the great thing about being an "individual " - the ability to have what others consider "maverick " ideas and thoughts - if we all thought exactly the same way - then there would be no need for psychologists for instance as we would all have "uniform thoughts " - ( as to WHO , dictated the "correctness" of those thoughts is a whole different ball game ) - and as no one had any thoughts that where considered "outside the norm " "delusional " "mistaken " etc etc - there would be no need for people to analyse and comment on them ( sheep don't need psychologists after all ;D - or do they ??:ponder:) - also of course there would be no progress - no inquiry - as we would all abide by a set of "rules " as to how we should think - as to what ideas are acceptable - and which not - what an awful world THAT would be ( been tried in the past in some places - never works at the end of the day as "people " are uncooperative blighters and there will always be those who will rebel against conformity ) 8)

also of course a lot of psychologists and others who ponder the mysteries of WHY people think /believe as they do would be out of work ;D

( sorry for going off on another tangent /muse here )

so thanks to all of you who have been brave enough to post your honest recounting of unusual experiences - O0O0

brett /bruno

[MRT]

At the time I thought nothing of it believe it or not, I just knew it was my daughter.

Isn't that a characteristic of dreams - that even though you can't see something in the dream, you just know it is there? Just a thought ...

Bruno - it is obviously a good thing that people think differently - it allows the evolution of thought. However, the point of science is to filter out the thoughts that don't correspond with reality, by testing them against evidence. We can all think whatever we like but by contributing to the body of scientific knowledge we are pushing forward a much greater project - the understanding of reality.

The point of this topic - how are ghosts identified? - is that it is one of those questions that reveals unquestioned and warranted assumptions. For instance, who says hauntings are caused by ghosts? And who says a ghost has to be identifiable at all?

As I mentioned earlier, many hauntings don't involve apparitions at all. It is an assumption by the witness that a few odd events in their house are caused by a ghost. That assumption may be informed by cultural stereotypes.

While there is evidence that 'hauntings' are real, if you define a haunting as a set of strange events associated with a particular location. However, the idea that these events are caused by a ghost is just an assumption. Apparitions may, instead, just be one of the symptoms of hauntings, like knocking sounds, rather than their cause. There is simply no good evidence that ghosts cause hauntings at all!

Even where witnesses see apparitions, why it is assumed that they will be identifiable? If the apparition is just a hallucination, there is no obvious reason why it should be an identifiable person, alive or dead, at all. The idea that a ghost can be identified is an unwarranted assumption.

Paranormal research is riddled with such unquestioned and unwarranted assumptions. It is only be identifying and challenging such assumptions that we can hope to progess at all.

[wooo_oops]

Even where witnesses see apparitions, why it is assumed that they will be identifiable? If the apparition is just a hallucination, there is no obvious reason why it should be an identifiable person, alive or dead, at all. The idea that a ghost can be identified is an unwarranted assumption.

I understand that reasoning entirely, but it's not a difficult assumption to make when your blimmin imagination's having a shot at the reasoning.

Imagining for a moment that my 'sense of presence' and hallucination was the result of low frequency sound waves (wind across the open window), not having identified that at the time would mean that I would react to the hallucination as being the most provocative event in the series of events...and I can well understand why and how people identify ghosts...there's nothing else it could be at the time which seems a reasonable explanation, your brain does it all for you beause that's how it's wired - seeing patterns and making sense of things. I think the problem is that people rely too heavily on the information from their own brain. And that's a tricky one to convince anyone with.

[MRT]

I'm really refering to investigators here. I can see why a witness would be convinced they'd seen someone and would wonder who it was. But many investigators, who are supposed to take a more objective view, also assume the apparition is identifiable when there is no good logical reason to.

[wooo_oops]

I'm really refering to investigators here. I can see why a witness would be convinced they'd seen someone and would wonder who it was. But many investigators, who are supposed to take a more objective view, also assume the apparition is identifiable when there is no good logical reason to.

I don't really take part in investigations any more but when I did, for the most part, many of the investigators were there only to be witnesses themselves. Which is why I got fed up with it - the conclusions were 'yes, there is something happening', but they had no idea how to investigate it, and almost always used mediums to confirm that 'something'.

[bruno.j]

hi MRT - in the context of "the generally understood meaning " of the word/s "haunting/haunted " i would incline to disagree with you - as a "haunting " to most people - by its very nature involves ghosts /spirits ( usual disclaimer as to weather they actually exist )

what you are describing is a set of "anomalous " or unexplainable events - which AS you correctly observe may have absolutely nothing what to do with the above

it is a matter of where you draw the boundary lines between the two sets of occurrences i suppose

may be we should redefine some of the terms ??

so just a suggestion : the following define which is which

HAUNTING : - must relate to actual or supposed activity by disembodied entities ( who may or may not be deceased )

HAUNTED : a location where such activity is witnessed - recorded - observed

L.O.A.A - ( LOCATION OF ANOMOLUS ACTIVITY ) - any location where this is observed -( and may or may not be deemed paranormal ) - but is of a type not regarded as normal and for which no current scientific explanation exists


hows that ?? - please feel free to add /amend as you see fit ;)

if we all, ( paranormalists - science- and skeptics ) can sort out a set of defined terms we can all agree on - this would be a good start - at least we would all know what we are arguing about ;D

any of you got any other suggestions ?? ( serious ones please )

regards

Brett .

[MRT]

Sometimes what is 'generally understood' is just plain wrong! In this case, the dictionary defintion of a haunting bears no relation to what is found in real life investigations.

I would suggest a definition of haunting is: "a series of unusual events, generally at a particular location, which are not imeadiately explainable by those witnessing them and therefore often ascribed to paranormal agencies"

I have looked into many haunted locations and this description would fit all of them. I suspect it would fit all the ones you've looked into too!

Witnesses (and even some investigators!) may assume that apparitions are responsible for hauntings but that is just their assumption. I can't think of ANY credible evidence I have ever come across that suggested an apparition was responsible for a haunting. If anyone CAN suggest any such evidence, I'd love to see it. In the meantime, I would say putting apparitions at the centre of a haunting is an unwarranted assumption based on the idea that ghosts are spirits which, in itself, is just an assumption.

I see no reason to introduce the idea of LOAA (any witness who had one in their house would say it was haunted!) - that is just complicating the problem when we should be simplifying and resolving it.

[Cuddles]

HAUNTING : - must relate to actual or supposed activity by disembodied entities ( who may or may not be deceased )

That's a useless definition because there is no evidence for such a thing as a disembodied entity, let along them being responsible for hauntings. This is one of those unwarranted assumptions that MRT mentioned. For example, I could give a definition of:

"HAUNTING : - must relate to actual or supposed activity by orbiting teapots ( who may or may not be china )"

Unless I can provide evidence that said teapots exist and that they are capable of producing the effects I am using them to explain, the whole definition is pointless.

Like using mediums in investigations, it's just an example of ignotium per ignotius (sp?). Trying to explain one mystery by postulating something equally, or more, mysterious really doesn't help matters.

[bobdezon]

"HAUNTING : - must relate to actual or supposed activity by orbiting teapots ( who may or may not be china )"

Unless I can provide evidence that said teapots exist and that they are capable of producing the effects I am using them to explain, the whole definition is pointless.

Its funny you should say that O0


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/364/starjumpqf4.jpg

[bruno.j]

nah the photo is a fake ;D

bruno.j

[wooo_oops]

;D Aah, the interweb. Innit wonderful?

[MRT]

I would say that, from the available evidence, apparitions are non-essential symptoms of hauntings. I have never come across a report where an apparition was actually seen to move objects, knock on walls or produce the sound of footsteps as it walked!

So, based, purely on the evidence there is no reason to assume that ghosts are essential to hauntings at all.

[bruno.j]

ok so call any actually involving an entity a "para haunting " - ( above a haunting ) ;D - and then i can restyle my self as a "para haunting investigator " - sounds good and could start a whole new trend ( i thought of it first mind ) ;DO0

brett (TIC :ghost: )

[MRT]

How do you detect an entity?

[bobdezon]

Pssssh!!!, you jutst dont get it do you? you use a PK Meter silly ::)

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/6927/pkmeterwi9.jpg

[bruno.j]

MRT - FYI - TIC = TOUNGE IN CHEEK !! - ergo - a humorous response - not meant to be taken seriously - a bit like this thread so it would appear ::)

ah well - time i went on my merry way - its been fun folks - thank you for your courtesy - have a good life all of you - and just remember one thing

there IS one similarity between sceptics and believers that no one can dispute

WE ALL NEED LOO PAPER TO WIPE OUR BOTTIES !! O0

( oh and Jason this time i am gone away - as promised - if you are down my way any time look me up - I'll buy you a drink in my local O0 )

best regards to you all

brett ( aka bruno.j )

whooooooooosh - ( me gone byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee )

[Dr B]

No need to go Brett, it seemed to me like you were learning a great deal (and contributing your views just fine O0). Why not stick around?

Or was it all part of Stefan's master plan? 8)

anyway, good to have you here and you see - we are not all those nasty skeptics that some would have you believe......::)

[bobdezon]

I wonder why it is that in any group of sceptics, two sceptics can fall out over a silly argument about an unproven concept and not speak for 20 years, but in some of these little believer forums they will forgive anything for company? Makes you think of the true nature of such a forum.

[MRT]

I've thought about it and, weird as it sounds, it makes sense from the evidence. Hauntings don't need ghosts! I have tried to find an account of an apparition being observed actually doing one of the other 'symptoms' of a haunting eg. moving an object, producing footsteps in synch with walking, etc, but I can't! It was also noticeable in the reports that I read that only in a small minority was an apparition observed at all. And when it was, it just stood there or walked around a bit and didn't interact with anything or anyone.

It leads me to conclude that there is no obvious evidence that ghosts are in any way responsible for hauntings. The idea that a haunting is caused by a ghost seems to be pure assumption. In reality, it looks as though something else causes hauntings and apparitions are just another, rather rare, symptom.

In science, we start with the evidence and work towards a theory. In the case of hauntings it seems the opposite has happened. People have started with the idea that ghosts are responsible and then simply ignored the evidence, or tried to make it fit.

So come on everybody, let's stop blaming ghosts - they are innocent!

[DaveWood]

So come on everybody, let's stop blaming ghosts - they are innocent!

.......Free the Enfield 1?

[bobdezon]

I've thought about it and, weird as it sounds, it makes sense from the evidence. Hauntings don't need ghosts! I have tried to find an account of an apparition being observed actually doing one of the other 'symptoms' of a haunting eg. moving an object, producing footsteps in synch with walking, etc, but I can't! It was also noticeable in the reports that I read that only in a small minority was an apparition observed at all. And when it was, it just stood there or walked around a bit and didn't interact with anything or anyone.

It leads me to conclude that there is no obvious evidence that ghosts are in any way responsible for hauntings. The idea that a haunting is caused by a ghost seems to be pure assumption. In reality, it looks as though something else causes hauntings and apparitions are just another, rather rare, symptom.

In science, we start with the evidence and work towards a theory. In the case of hauntings it seems the opposite has happened. People have started with the idea that ghosts are responsible and then simply ignored the evidence, or tried to make it fit.

So come on everybody, let's stop blaming ghosts - they are innocent!


You might like this

http://badpsychics.com/badghosts/modules/news/article.php?storyid=42

[MRT]

What the author of that article is describing is the sort of stories you get in 'Ghosts of Nowhereshire'. I don't think anyone takes that sort of stuff seriously, apart from TV producers and lazy journalists. It certainly bears no resemblance to the material you find when you investigate live hauntings.

[Dr B]

Haunted brains guys, not haunted houses. :ghost:

[MRT]

It's not just brains. As you well know DrB there are cases where independent witnesses have reported the same experiences. It's clearly a place thing. There is some stimulus at a particular site (whether it's a spooky atmosphere, stories, magnetic fields, whatever) that causes certain people to react in a similar way. What it ISN'T, using the evidence, is the work of a ghost! Indeed, the way apparitions are reported to behave sounds very much like a hallucination!

[Dr B]

It's not just brains. As you well know DrB there are cases where independent witnesses have reported the same experiences.

Just because they dont share the same brain does not mean it is not ultimately computed by it and the same processes apply.


It's clearly a place thing.

It has it's role - but not as predominant a one as the brain itself.


Indeed, the way apparitions are reported to behave sounds very much like a hallucination!

Which needs a brain? :cheesy:

[bobdezon]

The author is putting the point across that certain very common ghost stories are constantly reoccuring over and over again. By recognising such an archtypal ghost you can probably dismiss it offhand given the wealth of information already accumulated on such obviously imaginary entities. It is pointing out that many tales you have heard all have similar roots and reasons. I should know, Im the author.

I do agree that there are many peculiar cases that do not match these, but the article is entitled archtypal ghosts and as such only applies to that criteria. Most people get into this via fortean phenomena magazines and stories. As such it was a good way of making the point as people would already be familiar with the concept and story type.

[MRT]

Just because they dont share the same brain does not mean it is not ultimately computed by it and the same processes apply.

My point is same stimulus, similar reaction. And the stimulus is at a particular place. The brain may experience the phenomena but it is still reacting to a stimulus at a particular location. The brain may experience the phenomenon but it is stimulated by something at a haunted place.

Being place-centred is a fundemental characteristic of hauntings. Funnily enough, those promoting a 'spirit' idea of ghosts have a hard time explaining this tight space restriction. Spiritualists claim they can contact anyone 'on the other side' from anywhere. And yet ghosts are supposedly stuck in one tiny place - sometimes just a few square metres! Various unconvincing reasons are put forward for this, like an attachment to somewhere they once lived or died but it sounds like an excuse.

Regarding archetypes - when someone phones you up asking you to investigate a ghost in their house, in the vast majority of cases they haven't even seen an apparition (just had a lot of weird things happening which they decide is a haunting). In the very few cases where they have seen an apparition, it is almost never a monk, grey lady, soldier or anyone in a stagecoach. It generally someone who looks fairly normal, sometimes in period costume. I hope that clarifies what I meant.

[bobdezon]

admittedly there is a big difference between a stately home and a pub though. I can imagine most calls come from less grand places.

[MRT]

I think what you're referring to is 'traditional' ghosts of the kind described in guide books to encourage tourists. If you enquire about such phantoms, you find they were last seen in 1873 by Lady Elsevier during an attack of the vapours! Needless to say, nobody zooms off to have a look (except perhaps Most Haunted).

[bobdezon]

Most haunted would attend a venue where a cat coughed up a hairball incase it was an apport ;)

[Dr B]

My point is same stimulus, similar reaction. And the stimulus is at a particular place. The brain may experience the phenomena but it is still reacting to a stimulus at a particular location. The brain may experience the phenomenon but it is stimulated by something at a haunted place.

True - but the brain can generate its own internal stimulus as well - it is not always dependent on a spooky context. So you can get the same response from multiple stimuli (internal and external). O0

There will be no comprehensive understanding of hauntings without a comprehensive understanding of brain and cognition. Also - remember - spooky contexts do not impact on everyone. I don't think I am disagreeing at all - just adding a bit more qualification.

[vivianjp]

The most common style of a human haunting is a residual haunting. A residual haunting is like having an impression made in time. The entity may seem to be lost in a time warp. The spirit really isn't even there, only the energy is.

In most cases people may here screaming or crying due to the violence factor that may have caused this traumatic event to happen. People may also hear the sounds of footsteps walking on the stairs or through hallways

[Mulder]

The most common style of a human haunting is a residual haunting. A residual haunting is like having an impression made in time. The entity may seem to be lost in a time warp. The spirit really isn't even there, only the energy is.

In most cases people may here screaming or crying due to the violence factor that may have caused this traumatic event to happen. People may also hear the sounds of footsteps walking on the stairs or through hallways

I can't say I've ever come across a case of screaming in a haunting. Do you have an example of one, please?

What other types of haunting are there? How do you tell which is which?

[Cuddles]

The most common style of a human haunting is a residual haunting. A residual haunting is like having an impression made in time. The entity may seem to be lost in a time warp. The spirit really isn't even there, only the energy is.

Care to actually back any of that up?

[bobdezon]

only here to sell those pay by the minute astrology sites cuddles O0