MRT
22nd October 2007, 04:21 PM
I get sent anomalous photos to analyse. I examine the photo on its own without looking at the story that usually accompanies it. As far as I'm concerned the story is usually (though not always) irrelevant to what caused an orb, strange mist, UFO, etc.
Many accompanying stories talk about 'relevance' eg. the place, time, the subject etc. It might be an orb in a graveyard or a UFO near a military airbase. This 'relevance' is often what prompts people to send me photos. If they get an orb in a wedding photo it's just annoying. If it's in a haunted house it's 'relevant'!
This business of 'relevance' crops up repeatedly in paranormal research. I usually ignore it but I know it must skew what gets reported to paranormal research groups. I know it is obviously a psychological phenomenon but has any ever studied it properly?
Many accompanying stories talk about 'relevance' eg. the place, time, the subject etc. It might be an orb in a graveyard or a UFO near a military airbase. This 'relevance' is often what prompts people to send me photos. If they get an orb in a wedding photo it's just annoying. If it's in a haunted house it's 'relevant'!
This business of 'relevance' crops up repeatedly in paranormal research. I usually ignore it but I know it must skew what gets reported to paranormal research groups. I know it is obviously a psychological phenomenon but has any ever studied it properly?