Most Haunted: it's effect on legitimate research.

[John Jackson]

I've never been on a "ghost hunt" or a vigil - it has never interested me as:

a) I don't believe that ghosts exist (as entities in their own right); and

b) I have always had a stereotypical image of ghost hunters (yes I know that I should know better) as credulous people just looking to find what they want to see.


Now I'm aware that there is some serious research that is being done on ghosts, or at least the very real ghost experiences that people have. Members of the SPR and ASSAP do scientific research for example.

I was wondering though, what effect Most Haunted has had on this field of research.

I found this article by Dr Paul Lee (www.paullee.com (http://www.paullee.com)): http://www.btinternet.com/~dr_paul_lee/ghostresearch.htm

Most Haunted seems to have had quite a negative effect. Unless of course you're one of the thrill-seekers.

[Muse]

I don’t think it’s any exaggeration to say that the show Most Haunted single-handedly brought about an explosion in popular interest in all things paranormal that hasn’t been to the good. While it’s producers originally claimed it to be a ‘serious investigation’ (!) into paranormal phenomena, a very obvious combination of abysmal research, lack of proper investigative expertise and experience coupled with a resident medium who had more in common with a slapstick clown eventually saw its demise. What can one expect from a show which originally started with an actor as a parapsychologist, a ‘historian’ with a conspicuous lack of academic credentials, investigators who were either the producer’s extended family, make up artists etc and a medium who wouldn’t look out of place in a local amateur dramatics group so used is he to portraying fictional characters? Oh yes – and commissioned by a TV Exec who asserted it was all “paranormal bollocks” back in 2003 during a debate at the Guardian TV festival in Edinburgh..

OK so Most Haunted may be hanging on in there – Antix are shooting series 8 as I write - but only just and not before its followers have wreaked havoc across the world of the genuine paranormal investigator and set paranormal tourism on a new and accelerated ascendancy. While no fan of ghost investigations myself - mainly as no-one can satisfactorily demonstrate the apparent ‘proven’ link between an emf meter readings and the presence of a so called ghost, there are a tiny handful of groups who genuinely try to determine the reasons, environmental factors etc why people report the phenomena they do. Sadly, their activities have been severely disrupted by the burgeoning mass of ‘medium’ led wannabes.

Crumbling old piles with struggling visitor numbers have jumped on the paranormal bandwagon with almost indecent haste wondrously repackaged as pukka haunted venues with inflated charges, psychic evenings and organised ghost hunts. Others like Chingle Hall have closed their doors altogether after their experiences. Meanwhile gaggles of eager twenty-somethings meet armed with their trusty emf meters and digi cameras to scramble over venerable ancient sites in the hope of capturing the odd orb, spirit light, shadowy figure, shapeshifter or other such nonsense – often to cries of trespass in some cases and to charges of actual criminal damage in others.

Its now de rigeur amongst a certain age group to be able to discuss the finer points of fixed object experiments, table tipping, EVP, malevolent spirits and shapeshifters. – In all it’s a shameful business that has created a whole world of absolute nonsense for the credulous to explore. Most Haunted, together with Living TV must take its share of the blame.

[jimmy_vespers]

Hi Everyone,

I have to confess from the outset that I have been on many ghost hunts and that the subject has always intrigued me. This is not to say that I am a card carrying believer, far from it, and I recognise that programmes such as Most Haunted are a missed opportunity for serious research.

I very much enjoyed reading Muse's post and agree with a lot of the content but I'm not sure how much harm MH has done really. People have always believed in ghosts and will continue to do so and if they want to enjoy a 'jolly' at some creepy castle or rambling stately home with like minded individuals good luck to them.

Toby :)

[John Jackson]

Hi, Toby. And welcome.

My point, well strictly Paul Lee's point, is that with the explosion of amateur investigation groups there are very few, if any, really interesting places left where serious study can be done as they've all been visited by these amateur groups. Understandably, owners of such places are also keen to make a quick buck so the charges for visiting these places have gone through the roof.

That's the damage that MH and the likes have done.

It would be interesting to find a place that was allegedly haunted so that a scientific, longitudinal study could be done on the place. Sadly, too many groups think they can go in, do a one night vigil, and solve the mystery.

John

[jimmy_vespers]

Hi John and thanks for the welcome. I appreciate the argument about the proliferation of amateur paranormal groups but could it not be said in their favour that they do discover the occasional interesting case that the more serious researchers like the SPR and ASSAP can then focus on?

The longitudinal study would indeed be an ideal, but hard to set up in reality. If ghostly goings on occur at all they are by nature spontaneous and occasional occurrences.

Toby

[Muse]

Hi Toby and welcome to the boards :)

Thanks for your kind comments.

Like you I agree that a series of properly conducted longitudinal studies is way overdue but feel this approach although worthy is resource intensive and so not likely to happen in the near future. There are very few systemmatic models for conducting proper research in haunted locations. Michaeleen Maher and Gertrude Schmeidler (Parasychological Association) came up with one which was highly praised. However it is seldom used as it is painstaking, resource intensive and very time consuming.

Unfortunately, until this method or one similar is widely adopted, it seems that Paul Lee's article will remain an accurate statement of the current situation. The vast majority of ‘paranormal investigators’ have neither the knowledge or the wherewithal to mount such detailed examinations in the field. Sadly, with study after study in the UK concluding that 'belief in the supernatural is bigger than Jesus' it looks like this ghost hunting craze is here to stay for the foreseeable.

My main gripes with the new breed of ghost hunter are,

Lack of Knowledge - Many groups find the short term thrill seeker approach delivers the kicks they want although it hardly ever reveals anything worthwhile.
Sadly few know of the many ways in which the brain can fool us by misinterpreting incoming information and are more inclined to seek validation for their ghostly beliefs than a rational explanation for events. Inexperienced investigators wielding equipment they don’t understand (hence orbs) or equipment that is wholly inappropriate for the job (emf/trifield meters) makes for a high rate of reported 'phenomena'. In addition many groups are unwilling/unable to research a location properly and are responsible for propounding half truths, fairy tales and downright rubbish as 'historical research'. A crime that Most Haunted is also guilty of.

Damage- One investigator has despaired of the current crop of ghost hunters saying,
”Of course I used to do this (ghost investigations) but the class of ghost hunter is no longer what it was when I was young. Then we used to get charming Americans, interested Japanese, well educated doctors and skillful tradesmen, (including bakers, plasterers, bricklayers and brewers). Now, sadly ghost hunters have become rowdy, drunken, irreverent and largely illiterate chavs, who often vomit on the antiques of the places we visit. Therefore I have given it up.”
http://www.afallon.com/index.htm

Here’s some examples of problems caused by the less professional groups. From past research I know that there are a lot more – but you get the general picture from this selection.

Drunken ghost hunter sets fire to Gate House, Darlington, causing 5,000 damage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4115702.stm

CCTV installed at the site of Borley Rectory to monitor hordes of ghost hunters and sightseers that are indulging in anti social behaviour, criminal damage and causing nuisance to residents. The scheme is a Home office Funded Project , the ‘Anti Social Behaviour Initiative 2003/4’.
http://tinyurl.com/zw6o4

Damage caused by ghost tour group (involving Richard Felix) at Elvaston Castle raises questions over the holding of any further paranormal events there
http://www.derbygripe.co.uk/castle2.htm

Numerous problems at Highgate Cemetery from ghost hunters, vampires assorted weirdos requiring police presence. One instance here.http://www.afallon.com/stories/highgate.htm

The residents of Pluckley in Kent, the most haunted village in England, according to the Guinness Book of Records, want people to understand that anyone intending to do a little psychic research please note that the majority of sites are private residences and the owners do not welcome ghost hunters after being overrun with them for years.
http://www.pluckley.net/history/ghosts.htm

…and don’t get me started on the venue owners who invent their own history and distort the facts so that they can charge higher fees…..
:D

[John Jackson]

I must admit that this is not an area that I'd claim any expertise in as it's never been a particular interest of mine.

I think there are some professional (para)psychologists etc. who do these studies and there are other, probably vastly more in number, amateurs (in the sense that they don't have a professional qualification) who also do some great work and help the field of study immensely.

The original query I was making was about a third group: the true amateurs (who don't have a clue what they're doing).

It's just that I have seen serious investigators complaining about the deliterious effect that these 'thrill seekers' have on this field of study, and much of the blame lies at the door of Living TV and Most Haunted.

e.g.

If there is a location that is allegedly haunted and it gets a lot of visitors, say a pub, guest house, hostel, then tracking down the people who've had experiences there and finding out what they were would give useful background information to be used to design a protocol for investigation.

If 70% of people said they heard a scream in a certain room then obviously that room and that event would be the focus of investigation.

What can happen however, is that a truly amateur group hears about the place, does an overnight vigil complete with emf meters, dowsing rods, Ouíja board, and of course their resident medium and they inevitably make some sort of contact and 'solve' the case.

Then they go home, write it all up, publish their findings on their website, and another location has been ruined as an investigation site because a load of information is revealed about the place.

If they say they made contact with a ghost called "Harry" then the legend of "Harry" will grow and whoever goes there knowing the story will see "Harry".

Like I say though, this is what I've learned from others - I have never been on a ghost hunt or vigil.

It's sad and ironic that the very people who are so keen to accept ghosts as real are the very people who are hampering the chances of anything significant ever being found if indeed any of this is at all real. :-\

[chillzero]

From a different perspective, I was absolutely thrilled when Most Haunted first began. Ihave always wanted to participate in a ghost hunt, and at the time was convinced there would be somethign to find, if they went abou tit the right way.

The shoddy approach to 'hunting', and the ridiculous willingness to accept 'happenings' without a second of sceptical thought had a perceptible effect on turning me away from such credulous attitudes.

I know of at least 2 other people who have become less inclined to believe 'true' ghost tales, and question claims in a different manner after watching how poorly Most Haunted approach the field. (Plus the terrible attitude of their forum members and in particular the moderators did not help much!)

[jimmy_vespers]

Hi Everyone,

The gripes Muse outlines regarding damage by thrill-seekers are really quite shocking. Although I have been involved with lots of people over the last few years in various paranormal groups and vigils I have thankfully never come across such behaviour. Clearly it does go on from the examples presented here and that is inexcusable of course.

The lack of knowledge too is sadly prevalent in many groups and the use of mediums, or people who claim psychic abilities is regrettable as the whole investigation tends to be led by such people. It becomes difficult if not impossible to verify what they say and it is awkward to say the least to have to discount their claims to their faces which leads to bad feeling and group tension. I have to say here that I have met some nice people who believe themselves to be psychic. The pressure in a group to accept their assertions is surprisingly great.

I also recognize John's point about amateur groups 'spoiling' potential locations for more serious researchers who arrive later.

Like chillzero I was delighted by the appearance of Most Haunted in the beginning, for, as a long time ghost enthusiast, (I believed something was going on, if not necessarily the return of spirits of the dead), I had been waiting for a serious look at the subject on our television screens. I know now that MH was far from a serious look at anything and although an entertaining romp around some of the creepier places in our islands it was just entertainment dressed up as something more. :(

My situation is difficult. From an early age I have been fascinated by ghosts, be they the horrors emerging from the pen of M R James or the anecdotal stories of the very strange from witnesses who are close to me and whom I trust. However, I hold to a rational and logical approach to life and find it difficult to really believe that the dead survive physical death, still less that they waste their time flitting around tantalising us for goodness knows what reason. Hence my appearance on this forum. I hope my mind remains open to new information and reasoned argument from both sides of the paranormal fence and thank you for already providing me with food for thought.

Toby :)

[John Jackson]

Toby, there's some great reading on the ASSAP forum: http://www.assap.org/forum/index.php

I'm on there too although I don't post much; it's more a case of me learning from those who are a lot more knowledgeable than me.

A point about skepticism though. If ghosts are real, although very elusive, it's only through a scientific approach that they will ever by disvovered IMO. In order to recognise the paranormal, first we need to understand the normal.

I can't see the merit of using one unproven/disproven method (mediums/dowsing/etc.) to verify something else that's unproven (ghosts).

To be honest, I'm going to look a bit deeper into this subject as I think there's a lot to be learned from it. I'm thinking more along the lines of psychology though rather than finding a ghost.

[jimmy_vespers]

Hi John,

Yes, ASSAP forum is full of interesting ideas from a psychological and even neurosciencentific angle. I'm prepared to believe that at least some of the answers may lie in the complexities of perception.

I'm a member too and I don't post much either but I try to follow the discussions.

Toby

[Dr B]

I know a chap who failed to get a grant because the reviewers thought he wanted to do MH nonsense. This was a shame as his proposal was sound and was more an investigation into how suggesiton and belief in certain situations can impact on human exprience.

Here is one example of how even legitimate science is feeling the pinch!!!!

[Dr B]

I have heard the new series of MH and MH live (sorry I don't have Sky) has a new expert......a student no less!!!!!

Basically, no professional in the country is going near it. I actually know this 'expert' - he runs a group and you can check it out here....www dot parascience dot org dot uk/

I have also heard he is starting a PhD at Liverpool (the course itself looks dire) in the same department as the last expert.

It is a woo site and deeply disappointing. The track record of the 'expert' is not good - he seems to do all the telly no one else wants (including stuff even I turn down!!!). Indeed, i met him at one of my cases where I turned down the filming because it was dire, only to see this chap show up with the film crew. He was supposed to be the expert. I think its kind of 'all about him'. A bit like the idiot off Big Brother who has just left (my wife watches it before you ask......) 8)

I asked the expert once - "how can you be an expert on this case....when you have never researched it?"......that was years ago and I am still waiting for a reply ;D

He likes to appear scientific (as all good woo's do) but scratch alittle and the truth comes through. It is a shame as there are some clever people in the group spending time and money following him about. Ahhh well.

The bad thing is this person was openly critical of MH for years - but now they have offerred him the bright lights and stage.....that seems to be all forgotten about.....

If anyone sees him in action on the TV please keep us informed. O0

[John Jackson]

Orbs...

http://www.parascience.org.uk/misc/method/orbs.htm

It seems to me that applying the Orb TestTM (their attitude to orbs) is a good way of measuring the WooWooness of these groups.

They don't seem to have gone off the WooWoo scale altogether, but..., there might just be something to orbs after all... ::)

[vbloke]

It took me a while to figure out the site was supposed to be serious.

[Dr B]

Thats my point!!!!

I have had conversations with these woo's......it aint pretty......

[Dr B]

Another thing to note is that some people can pinch ideas and plagiarise all over the place. they never cites their source - trying to pass it all off as 'their idea'. Truth is myself, and others in ASSAP have discussed these ideas at length...then they storms off.....only for us to find out later they have used everything we said...but not credited those involved (sometimes we went into great length for their benefit). Well, at least its a paradigm shift for them.. ;D

ASSAP has done major research into photographic anomalies and orbs and has funded some new research to be done.......all these people do is is trawl the internet for other peoples research and pass it off as there own........

Some of it is their own research - but its easy to spot as that is the bad stuff.... ;D

[DaveWood]

This only takes on one angle of the MH effect, the effect on investigating.

A fun-size article of mine:
http://p-s-i.org.uk/spooxploitation.htm

[John Jackson]

Great article Dave O0

The paranormal researcher purely focused on observer phenomena may find this to be a nightmare – but for the broader focused researcher interested in psychology, this is no bad thing.

That's an aspect that hadn't crossed my mind. It probably doesn't help with understanding genuine anomalous phenomena, but it's probably an embarrassment of riches for those who want to investigate the psychology of belief.

As the field of paranormal research is increasingly discredited, familiarity with phenomena continues to breed contempt and spooxploitation saturates the market the bubble will burst.

I was looking at this issue from the point of serious parapsychology, the study of anomalous experience (as I prefer to call it), and it seemed to me that where there are genuine occurrences going on (whatever they may be) the chance to study them scientifically will be lost as the amateur enthusiasts jump in and myths are created by those who wish to exploit the financial potential.

I guess what goes around comes around and if some places are genuinely 'haunted' then they will continue to generate reports even after the current ghosthunting trend has died away.

[DaveWood]

It probably doesn't help with understanding genuine anomalous phenomena, but it's probably an embarrassment of riches for those who want to investigate the psychology of belief.

Yep, thats me.

I always make the most of ;-)

[John Jackson]

One word Dave: Orbs.

Why do people take them seriously?

I think it was on here that I said that I use people's/organizations' attitude to orbs as a sort of barometer test of how serious or scientific they are.

I guess I'm saying that the belief that orbs in photos are the beginnings of spirit manifestation is directly proportional to the belief in the paranormal.

Am I justified? ???

As a rule of thumb at least.

[DaveWood]

One word Dave: Orbs.

You've come to the right guy ;)


Why do people take them seriously?

Interesting question. I've spoken with numerous people who still take orbs seriously - their numbers have decimated - and I've observed the following reasons (often interlinked):
- Authoratative transfer of knowledge. Someone they respect or believe in has told them orbs are the first manifestation. This might be a medium, a TV programme, a website or a paranormal team leader. Until someone disproves this in their mind, it is held. However once a belief if gained people can find reasons to perpetuate it, so shaking it off is difficult for some.
- The Thrill Factor. Imagine finally getting out a ghost hunting and nothing is happening. Orbs provide the necessary stimuli for early investigators to carry on what they're doing. One reason why many investigators believe in orbs when they first start out, and then not later on.
- The Explanation is Too Damned Complicated. The natural explanations for orbs are not easily to get across. Virtually no-one will study it in depth, quite understandably really. So either you take the scientific explanation on faith, or the spiritual one on faith. Most seem to base their decision on belief systems or personal experience (see below). I've often commented that it's a shame that orbs are not about fact, but about belief or disbelief. Add to this the fact that the natural explanations seem so unreal ("no way could a speck of dust get that big") that people choose to reject.
- Misattribution and poor probabilistic reasoning. The 'evidence' for orbs convinces many people, for example 'orbs only appear in haunted houses, therefore must relate to the haunting'. Sound logic in theory, but untrue. Orbs appear anywhere and everywhere under the right conditions, it's just a shame that the conditions people go hunting for ghosts are the same conditions that orbs are most prevalent. In addition so many places are only defined as 'haunted' because of orb capture, which thus becomes cyclical. Further, if people see 100 orb photos that do not support a theory and 1 that does, they will showcase that one case and remember that case only. Many people are convinced by sensitives pointing at orbs, in cases where this is just down to probability.
- Profound personal experiences. Perhaps the most rare variety. Sometimes people actually witness orb-like phenomena with their naked eye, a photo is taken and reveals an orb. Understandably this sort of 'evidence' is personally very compelling. However, their experience has nothing to do with dust - just a coincidence in my view.


I think it was on here that I said that I use people's/organizations' attitude to orbs as a sort of barometer test of how serious or scientific they are.

Yes and no.

I think you can make judgements about a group if they do believe in orbs-as-paranormal, but you cannot if they don't believe in orbs.

A couple of years ago your statement would be been wholly accurate in most cases, but as the Most Haunted generation of investigators has become more experienced they have shunned orbs. But in many cases this doesn't mean they have become more scientific, again it's down to belief.

The same people that were excited by orbs and shunned natural explanations after time became bored by orbs and more likely to accept the natural explanation. Similarly as they saw newer people becoming involved and getting excited about orbs I know it pleased many of them to become the debuffers.

But it often isn't associated with a scientific method that pervades other areas of work.

Having said all this, I know at least one group that is more scientific and serious than the majority of groups out there and their team all seem to believe orbs can be paranormal.


I guess I'm saying that the belief that orbs in photos are the beginnings of spirit manifestation is directly proportional to the belief in the paranormal.

Am I justified? ???

As a rule of thumb at least.


Yes and no, much the same as before.

If someone believes orbs are paranormal then 9 times out of 10 they are going to be 'woo'. However if someone doesn't believe in orbs that doesn't make them a sceptic or any less of a believer. Most of the hardcore paranormal believers I know believe orbs to be dust.

[Aardvark]

'A word of counsel concerning orb photography:
Orbs can be produced by accident, and can appear quite readily on film by the elements and conditions around you. Most orb photographs are merely the result of dust or even weather conditions such as rain and humidity. Moisture, dust and airborne particles up close to the lens at the time of the flash can and will effect the results of your pictures. Always make a note of the conditions around you when doing ghost photography.
Written August. 22, 1999'

taken from;-
http://www.ghoststudy.com/a_what_are_orbs.html

Look at the examples here
http://theshadowlands.net/ghost/orbs.htm

I am pretty sure that I can create these effects in camera with the correct(or incorrect) use of lens, apperture and flash. These appear to be lens abberations in multi element lenses with poor reflective coating. Using a mirror lens and shooting into light will nearly always give doughnut shaped highlights for a similar reason.

I an not sure that dust is the reason, more likely to be extraneous light.

[DaveWood]

I an not sure that dust is the reason, more likely to be extraneous light.


It's airborne particles (mostly dust) illuminated by light (usually flash, but sometimes even daylight).

You can't have one without the other ;)

[Aardvark]

I an not sure that dust is the reason, more likely to be extraneous light.


It's airborne particles (mostly dust) illuminated by light (usually flash, but sometimes even daylight).

You can't have one without the other ;)


You are right Dave, dust does cause light to scatter especially if it inside a camera body or on the inside element of an SLR lens. Even outside the camera in light streams dust particles reflect light all over the place. Cheers O0

[John Jackson]

Thanks for that posting Dave - very informative. O0

I find that when I take photos indoors and the flash is used that orbs appear quite frequently. I'm sure they appear quite frequently in digital photography but are ignored or not even noticed when people are not looking for 'ghosts'.

If an orb was captured by 2 separate cameras simultaneously then it would be more impressive as it would rule out a speck of dust/moisture close to the lens of one camera.

I get your point about people who don't believe in orbs not necessarily being any more scientific than those who do. I just found it a quick way to get a feel for a particular group's approach. I go to a paranormal investigator's website and look for their take on orbs - if they're into them I tend to dismiss them as 'ghost hunters' rather than investigators.

[Mojo]

If an orb was captured by 2 separate cameras simultaneously then it would be more impressive as it would rule out a speck of dust/moisture close to the lens of one camera.

Only if it were possible to demonstrate that it was actually two images of the same "orb" rather than just two independent specks of dust.

[John Jackson]

Yes, that's what I meant Mojo.

If an orb really is hovering over a bed (for example) then it should appear of 2 cameras pointing to it from different angles.

[Mojo]

Do people actually claim to have seen the orbs as they were photographing them rather than them just showing up on the photos?

[DaveWood]

Unfortunately for the person who manages to rig up two cameras to capture an orb over a bed it doesn't help.

I know of one group that claimed to have done something similar, but don't know the details.

However if someone takes 30 photos using two cameras there is probably a fairly good statistical chance that they are two independent modes of dust appearing in the same location on one occasion.

They may then - with the best intentions - forget the other 29 and present that one photo as 'proof'.

On the other point, it's rare that people claim to see an orb and capture it on camera. It does happen on those rare occasions of course.

Again, if you did see a circular light anomaly and were using a cheap camera in the dark there may be a 1 in 3 chance of an orb appearing on that shot anyway.

The whole poor probabalistic reasoning deal is a minefield when it comes to orbs.

[John Jackson]

I did use the word 'simultaneously' at first. My idea was that 2 cameras would be triggered at the same time, with perhaps one separate flash, from different angles and any orbs that appeared on both pictures in the same place would be more 'interesting'.

Really it's a way of ruling out most orbs rather than verifying any that might remain.

Are there any instances of people seeing orbs without cameras? (Mojo's point).

Sorry Dave, I'm questioning you heavily but only because I'm so interested. ;)

[Dr B]

I suggested a three-camera protocol to a woo-group years ago. With a well measured space and carefully placed cameras, and some fancy mathematics one could say that certain effects were more likely to be in true 3-dimensional space or not (need to carfully control camera height and projection).

Of course, dust is in 3-dimensional space, (though it would be unlikely to be illuminated by flash equally by two separate cameras) but it would at least rule out other natural explanations to do with the internals of the camera.

For me, the work dave is doing is excellent - orbs have nothing to do with haunting experiences - because on the whole people do not 'experience' them - they are just artifacts on technology - a kind of post-hoc experience from trying to interpret ambiguous stimuli....however, we must have viable explanations for them.

For other cultural, historical, and sociological reasons we can be sure orbs are not crucial to understanding the haunt-type experience. ;)

[DaveWood]

My idea was that 2 cameras would be triggered at the same time, with perhaps one separate flash, from different angles and any orbs that appeared on both pictures in the same place would be more 'interesting'.


You're right. Except with one external flash, it's intensity wouldn't be great enough to illuminate dust particles within the orb zone and thus none would appear.


Sorry Dave, I'm questioning you heavily but only because I'm so interested. ;)


There have always been reports of people seeing light anomalies of a whole variety of shapes, sizes, colours etc.

These sometimes get confused in people's minds, I guess. If people see a light anomaly and are a big orb-believer they may define it as an orb.

However such experiences are so rare and subjective that it's difficult to conclude.

[DaveWood]

For other cultural, historical, and sociological reasons we can be sure orbs are not crucial to understanding the haunt-type experience. ;)


Yes. With the starting point if there being no recorded orbs before the mid-1990s and the advent of digital cameras ;D

However when approached with the near-certainty that orbs are a product of digital cameras, orb-sympathisers do come up with alternative explanations.

One popular one is the idea that digital cameras capture light in the infrared spectrum somewhere in the region of 200 nanos higher than, a) a human, or b) a 35mm camera. Therefore orbs are an infra-red ghost product.

Also may explain in some people's minds why some people claim to see orbs and others don't, as people do have varying abilities to see varying levels.

However, to return to John's point. Some mediums do claim to see orbs, to point to them and ask lots of people to take photographs, etc.

To be honest I sit on the fence when it comes to mediumship - I feel it isn't really measurable. But when it comes to orb-mediums I am relatively convinced of fraud.

[Dr B]

Hiya Dave

"One popular one is the idea that digital cameras capture light in the infrared spectrum somewhere in the region of 200 nanos higher than, a) a human, or b) a 35mm camera. Therefore orbs are an infra-red ghost product. Also may explain in some people's minds why some people claim to see orbs and others don't, as people do have varying abilities to see varying levels."

Actually, these woo-type ideas do not explain anything, at least to me.

Basic psychophysics shows that Individual variability in the scope of pure vision is not large at all (though in acuity it is) 350nm to 700nm being the maximum range. There is no real way that anything in the true infra-red spectrum would be consciously perceived by the naked eye in the natural setting - anyone making that claim should give you precise figures. When they fail to do so - be sceptical. IR light is beyond the red of visible light and we experience it as heat. Indeed, this physically predicts that all orbs - if infrared and possible to see them - should be a strong reddish colour in nature. Basically, Your eyes cannot see light that has a wavelength longer than 0.7 microns. The entire band of true infrared light is invisible to us.

There is a small part of light known as near-IR light - but it is very small and again very difficult to see in normal conditions.

The demonstrations that come close are highly experimental and a stimulus near the IR spectrum is presented in isolation (i.e., in the complete absence of other competing items which are far more favoured by the response of the human eye). However, even here we are not talking about the IR spectrum that a camera can respond to. The idea is neurophysiologically implausible to me.

Cognitively, it is also implausible. Information out there in the world competes for your attention - you cannot attend to everything at once - so the brain has to keep making decisions as to what is relevant and what is irrelevant. One of the main factors deciding this is the salience of the stimuli. IR stimuli will never be salient enough under normal viewing conditions when all the other competing stimuli are shouting much louder for your limited attentional resources. Keep in mind that you cannot be aware of anything you are not attending to!

If orbs are an IR product then - as i said above, they have no consequence for the haunt-type experience as people simply cannot see in that range. If anyone produces any data on this I would be real keen to see it.

Note also that I and others have tested physics under lab conditions where we present them with stimulus that is noisy - like the crackle of an untuned radio (white noise) or a visible stimulus like an untuned TV set. We tell them that a certain stimulus will occur in a stream of information a number of times - all they have to do is detect it by pressing a button ( a relatively standard test). On the critical block of trials - no such signals are played - all they get is noise. Yet the psychics (and not the control groups) keep pressing away as if they are seeing and hearing stuff all over the place. This is a response bias and has nothing to do with stimulation (as there was no stimulatory signal in the stream of noise).

Some of the psychics I have tested match patient groups (i.e., hallucinating schizophrenics) exactly. Now what does that tell us.....hhhhhmmmmm

[DaveWood]

Ask for a neuroscientist, and he shall appear ;)

Yes. Completely on board with you here, DrB.

People will grab onto any explanation that attempts to confirm prior belief.

Just before I posted I just collected together the results from the panel of disinterested people deciding on orb 'hits' and 'misses' in the orb experiment.

Still need statistical tests to be run on them, but a few interesting features noted.

One in 40 35mm photos contained an actual orb, and one in 40 contained (what I would call) a suspect orb.

A rate much higher than for the digital SLR!

Quite pleased we got those actually.

[Dr B]

ping...

:ghost:

[Dr B]

Dave, maybe we should call you "Dr Orb" (cue one of johns smileys) ;D

[median]

Dr B wrote:Note also that I and others have tested physics under lab conditions where we present them with stimulus that is noisy - like the crackle of an untuned radio (white noise) or a visible stimulus like an untuned TV set. We tell them that a certain stimulus will occur in a stream of information a number of times - all they have to do is detect it by pressing a button ( a relatively standard test). On the critical block of trials - no such signals are played - all they get is noise. Yet the psychics (and not the control groups) keep pressing away as if they are seeing and hearing stuff all over the place. This is a response bias and has nothing to do with stimulation (as there was no stimulatory signal in the stream of noise).



What sort of stuff do they think they are hearing or seeing?

[Dr B]

Its not quite like that, we tell them what to look for (a basic shape, or a face, or a well known shape outline etc, of a sound of a certain pitch of word being said in the noise) - it really matters not, as they twist the noise to spot what they know they are looking for.

If they believe it is in the source, they find it....even when it is not there!

[vbloke]

The talented Dr Wiseman showed this very well during his lecture at TAM4 - playing a part of "Stairway To Heaven" backwards and then putting a slide of words on the projector and replaying the backwards track - all of a sudden, you could hear the words whereas before you knew what you were looking for, it was gibberish.

[Dr. C]

Hello DrB,

I'm surprised that a respected academic such as yourself uses a forum such as this, where you have elsewhere presented coherent, insightful and clever ideas, as an avenue for slander and hearsay. Your comments about the leader of Para.Science are either inaccurate or misinformed. As I understand it he is still openly critical of Most Haunted, and some other shows, as his role requires. Indeed, what better way to critique a show such as this than by becoming involved and witnessing first-hand it's claims. In addition, you have no idea what his PhD is about so to demean the 'course' at Liverpool Hope without this knowledge is wholly inaccurate.

This space provides a forum for open discussion about various aspects of 'Ghosts'. Indeed, the discussion about 'orbs' was compelling. Your opinion about a colleague's work in the media is fine, as long as it remains opinion. Your opinion of their work, whether published in the academic domain, or on the internet, is justified in the spirit of academic discussion, not in the style of muck-raking accusations of plagiarism that you have inappropriately put forward.

"It is your responsibility to present...accurate information."

[tkingdoll]

Dr. C, are you here to contribute to this discussion or have you got a personal agenda with Dr. B about another forum and no intention of contributing to the subject at hand? If the latter, I would respectfully suggest that you take your fight elsewhere.

[Dr. C]

My apologies if the posting implied the start of a fight. that was not my intention at all, merely to counter Dr. B's comments with regards to a colleague which were accepted without criticism. I'm not referring to another forum. My reference is to several coherent points brought up by Dr. B with regards to infrasound and orbs. I, for one, am looking forward to reading the published critique on infrasound.

With regards to infrasound, it is an area of research that has been severely neglected and not fully replicated following Tandy's original claims. Certainly some haunting experiences have been replicated in other contexts (e.g. concert halls, artificial environments) but the presence of infrasound and it's correlation (note: correlation) with experiences in actual locations hasn't been fully assessed. Something that Dr. B makes a valid point about.

[tkingdoll]

No worries, just checking :)

[Dr B]

Dr C

which parts of which comments would you like me to justify to you first....pick one.... 8)

Edit - please do not accuse me of slander and keep such amateurish unfounded accusations to yourself. If you want to debate my position lets do it. But dont start with fallacious comments you cannot back up ;)

I can back up my observations.....I would not voice them otherwise ;)

[Dr B]

Dr C

My initial comments on the course at Liverpool - seem well founded. The approaches used do not seem terribly empirical - all trans-personal stuff which is perhaps not the most vibrant source of empirical facts. Also I am not aware of any leading neuroscientist in the Para-psych department there - so i struggle to see where and how these topics would be covered appropriately. You are right these were and are my opinions - but based on evidential reasoning like that above.

My comments on certain individuals wanting to do telly more than real research are also backed up not just by my own interacitons and conversations but those of others i have spoken to. The person i am thinking of has explained many times that MH is terrible and would not be seen dead on there.....then when all other professionals have refused MH have to go looking for their experts and this person actually jumped at the chance rather than stand firm - like they claimed they would. I think this does question ones integrity to some degree. Again this is my opinion but one based on evidential reasoning.

I caught a certain person out who claims to be all scientific - yet shows up anywhere a camera crew does!!!

Dont get me wrong - there are many offenders and contenders for the "Linda Barker" award for being on telly too much including people like RW. Its a difficult line to walk - but some go clearly overboard. I think if you have gone on the record stating one position - but then shift as soon as the phone call comes - this is problematic.

I can also prove that I and other experts have provided, as we do, support for many amateur groups and are happy to do so. However, when your contributions are not cited or acknowledged in any manner - this raises big questions. Ask any undergraduate who has been told off for not using sources correctly. I can prove where my contributions were and were passed off as someone else's.

It does not bother me - but its not professional >:(

So, as you can see, i can back my opinions up as being valid interpretations. I wonder if you can?

[Dr. C]

Dr B

In reply to your comments: Let me first of all provide you with more information about your initial point regarding Liverpool's "trans-personal" stuff. First of all you constantly refer to the "course" at Liverpool Hope. Parapsychology is a third year optional module. A Ph.D specialising in a parapsychology topic is not strictly a course as there are no taught components but ongoing supervision from several of the parapsychologists within the department in addition to a supervisory mentor from University of Liverpool Psychology Dept. (from a non-para discipline). The parapsychology approaches represented within the department are not all transpersonal (are you confusing the department with the respected MSc programme at Liverpool John Moores?). The approaches are, on the whole, empirical. The parapsychologists within the department include Associate Professor Matthew Smith, Dr. O'Keeffe, Dr. Carl Williams & Dr. Christine Simmonds. You are absolutely right, there is no leading neuroscientist present in the department. Despite this, Dr. Simmonds does cover neurological research into parapsychology(including temporal lobe structures & psi). In an ideal world this would be given greater weight (even affording an appropriate module all on its own) but the department is restricted to a 12 week course to cover all topics from Ganzfeld research through to spontaneous case research.

Again, you're right that there is no leading neuroscientist in the department. I agree, in an ideal parapsychology department a representative from each and every approach is needed. Let's open a discussion on another topic elsewhere in UKSkeptics Forum about this though [I will post under 'Science']- what makes a parapsychology unit? In Edinburgh's Koestler Unit there is no leading neuroscientist though there is some fascinating doctoral work being done in the area.

I think your previous comments about plagiarism and citing, or acknowledging, sources, is highly appropriate given the field we're in. Where you state that your "contributions were passed off as someone else's", this is undoubtedly a case of plagiarism and/or idea theft. I think, perhaps, this is an issue between yourself and the author(s) you are referring to and for a more academic forum, even appropriate journals. As an academic myself I fully agree with your points here and feel it is unprofessional not to cite sources. I think your claims of Para.Science's leader as someone who "pinches ideas and plagiarises all over the place" are also for discussion elsewhere. Though, in my opinion, I think these claims are unneccessarily harsh and potentially unfounded. Let's leave this point of discussion here as it is between you and said author.

I also support many amateur groups but do so to learn about the groups themselves, and to develop and improve investigative protocol and ethics (though not to impose - see paragraph below). I do not expect any recognition for input on such protocol or reports, I feel that that form of recognition is traditionally reserved for our domain of academia. I respect your work with various amateur groups, and also ASSAP, and feel that we are in agreement about the plethora of unethical and unscientific groups that pepper the UK and the need for scientists, such as yourself, to inform such groups.

The issue of involvement of so-called experts in television programmes that cover haunting investigations is certainly a contentious discussion point. The point you make "I think if you have gone on the record stating one position - but then shift as soon as the phone call comes - this is problematic," is true and I, for one, have been guilty in the past for answering the phone all to quickly! It seems all contributors on this forum are aware that many of these shows do not represent the ideal portrayal of an actual investigation. This doesn't help, however, with the surplus of amateur groups seeking to mimic the antics depicted. The style of investigation represented is one approach, however, and it is wrong for us who feel we know better, to impose a protocol that ties in more with our own beliefs or philosophy. Your point, and others' points in this forum, deriding parapsychologists and investigators for joining such programmes is one point of view that is justified. Another is that the domain of academic journals in which we regularly publish rarely makes it to the public at large and so any message we attempt to get across to do with environmental or psychological variables in haunting experiences does not reach the masses. Perhaps the involvement of such figures in 'pop' shows can rectify this slightly. I know, for a fact, that Yvette Fielding (of Most Haunted), for example, had never considered the influence of EMF or other environmental influences until she had a telephone conversation with you. A conversation she cites as a clear example of how 'scientists can make the situation understandable'.

Perhaps the problem is that such shows suffer slightly from requiring viewing figures and hence an hour's show represents the 'best bits' from over 50 hours of footage, and sometimes a detailed explanation of the proper way of measuring EMF given by a 'boring academic' ends up on the cutting-room floor. Until academics are in a position to 'call the shots,' the little-by-little approach may be the only way to go - that, and involvement in more documentary-based shows (e.g. for Discovery) where more time is given to science.

I will raise a different discussion thread on the subject of 'ghosts' concerning temperature and say 'thank you' to Dr B and others for this interesting discussion but have this as my final word on the subject and politely 'duck out'! :)

Dr C.

[Dr B]

Hiya Dr C

Just a few things before we leave it..... ;)


Dr B

Parapsychology is a third year optional module. A Ph.D specialising in a parapsychology topic is not strictly a course as there are no taught components but ongoing supervision from several of the parapsychologists within the department in addition to a supervisory mentor from University of Liverpool Psychology Dept. (from a non-para discipline)......snip........You are absolutely right, there is no leading neuroscientist present in the department. Despite this, Dr. Simmonds does cover neurological research into parapsychology(including temporal lobe structures & psi). In an ideal world this would be given greater weight (even affording an appropriate module all on its own) but the department is restricted to a 12 week course to cover all topics from Ganzfeld research through to spontaneous case research.

This kind of makes my point for me. Parapsychology, whether it be taught or research-based (though more so when taught) is isolated from the mainstream for reasons which are totally alien to me. None of these courses, including the Liverpool one give solid groundings in (i) cognitive science, (ii) cognitive psychology, (iii) Neuroscience, (iv) computational modelling, etc. Why? It is a must for psychology majors from good departments and is a must for PhDs from good departments - which do actually have taught components as well as research to address concerns that not all undergraduates have been taught to the level they should have. I see nothing in the undergraduate course to address any of this and which is a shame. Its the same for the recent MSc at Coventry - simply no solid grounding in the aspects of science parapsychology so desperately needs. If a student asks me how to progress I advise them against doing a parapsychology MSc and PhD for all these reasons and many more.

Again, you're right that there is no leading neuroscientist in the department. I agree, in an ideal parapsychology department a representative from each and every approach is needed.

Indeed, please understand I am not 'having a pop' at any one person here, it is just my frustration at parapsychology not recognising vast areas of science and expertise out there and continuing to teach methods / technologies and ideas that are 60 years old (note also i am generalising for clarity). I strongly feel that anomalous cognition should be part of psychology courses - but not in the way they are taught by parapsychology courses at present.

In Edinburgh's Koestler Unit there is no leading neuroscientist though there is some fascinating doctoral work being done in the area.

Not in cognitive neuroscience there isnt! This is a fundamental ommisson. Neuroscience was the fastest growing science of the 1990s and is still developing - yet this is not reflected in any course or PhD I can see in this country on parapsychology. I really hope this changes soon.

I think your previous comments about plagiarism and citing, or acknowledging, sources, is highly appropriate given the field we're in. Where you state that your "contributions were passed off as someone else's", this is undoubtedly a case of plagiarism and/or idea theft. I think, perhaps, this is an issue between yourself and the author(s) you are referring to and for a more academic forum, even appropriate journals. As an academic myself I fully agree with your points here and feel it is unprofessional not to cite sources .

If my comments appeared harsh - that was not my intention - my intention was for them to be accurate depictions of my interactions - however we have discussed that. I have said nothing here that has not been said to those concerned. I guess you will soon see what I am referring to O0

Moving on, I suppose a level of involvement is also important here. If you are just giving advice (as i often do) then fine - I certainly do not go around looking for anything in return and never have - that is not really what I meant. What I mean is - if you have given 'considerable' time and effort in helping people do their best and as part of that you have provided important research questions for them, methods to use, and potential ways of interpreting it, then it is always a professional thing to acknowledge such advice - even if you do not take it.

I also support many amateur groups but do so to learn about the groups themselves, and to develop and improve investigative protocol and ethics (though not to impose - see paragraph below). I do not expect any recognition for input on such protocol or reports, I feel that that form of recognition is traditionally reserved for our domain of academia. I respect your work with various amateur groups, and also ASSAP, and feel that we are in agreement about the plethora of unethical and unscientific groups that pepper the UK and the need for scientists, such as yourself, to inform such groups.

Absolutely O0. I try to do what i can as freely as i can - but there is a limit. For me personally this is because I am not a parapsychologist and do not make a living from that field. I am a cognitive brain scientist with funded research interests in the fields of selective attention, awareness, consciousness, memory, etc. I cannot spend too much time away from that. I have always made myself available to amateur groups and continue to do so - it is vital. But many do waste our time - which is a shame. Ahh well.


As for the future of parapsychology, well it needs to update its act and get serious about more mainstream areas and their potential relevance. Just my opinion of course O0
I certainly do not want to get into any arguments here, i just wanted to address the the initial accusation that my comments were unfounded - they are not. My intiial thoughts on the course still stand really, for all the reasons given above. I think good intentions underlie such initiatives - but rarely has this resulted in good quality comprehensive courses. However, i certainly live in hope O0

[Hayley]

As part of an investigation team I have personally seen how Most haunted gives people a misguided representation of what true investigation and research is about and yes, it does create these groups of people who are just out there for fun.

There is also another kind of problem is causes, one I have encountered many times - and that is the locations who advertise them at "The most Haunted in Wiltshire" and call in a team such as the one I work with only to be caught faking activity simply because they want to get on Most Haunted.

[Dr B]

Hi Hayley and welcome to the Forum

That is interesting and worrying. Basically MH is pseudo-nonsense and has nothing to do with science. It's entertainment and all involved in it are only in it for their own publicity.

This is just my opinion of course O0

[Hayley]

Hi, Thanks for the welcome, I fully agree with you about Most Haunted too.

[jamiefox]

I don’t think it’s any exaggeration to say that the show Most Haunted single-handedly brought about an explosion in popular interest in all things paranormal that hasn’t been to the good. While it’s producers originally claimed it to be a ‘serious investigation’ (!) into paranormal phenomena, a very obvious combination of abysmal research, lack of proper investigative expertise and experience coupled with a resident medium who had more in common with a slapstick clown eventually saw its demise. What can one expect from a show which originally started with an actor as a parapsychologist, a ‘historian’ with a conspicuous lack of academic credentials, investigators who were either the producer’s extended family, make up artists etc and a medium who wouldn’t look out of place in a local amateur dramatics group so used is he to portraying fictional characters? Oh yes – and commissioned by a TV Exec who asserted it was all “paranormal bollocks” back in 2003 during a debate at the Guardian TV festival in Edinburgh..

OK so Most Haunted may be hanging on in there – Antix are shooting series 8 as I write - but only just and not before its followers have wreaked havoc across the world of the genuine paranormal investigator and set paranormal tourism on a new and accelerated ascendancy. While no fan of ghost investigations myself - mainly as no-one can satisfactorily demonstrate the apparent ‘proven’ link between an emf meter readings and the presence of a so called ghost, there are a tiny handful of groups who genuinely try to determine the reasons, environmental factors etc why people report the phenomena they do. Sadly, their activities have been severely disrupted by the burgeoning mass of ‘medium’ led wannabes.

Crumbling old piles with struggling visitor numbers have jumped on the paranormal bandwagon with almost indecent haste wondrously repackaged as pukka haunted venues with inflated charges, psychic evenings and organised ghost hunts. Others like Chingle Hall have closed their doors altogether after their experiences. Meanwhile gaggles of eager twenty-somethings meet armed with their trusty emf meters and digi cameras to scramble over venerable ancient sites in the hope of capturing the odd orb, spirit light, shadowy figure, shapeshifter or other such nonsense – often to cries of trespass in some cases and to charges of actual criminal damage in others.

Its now de rigeur amongst a certain age group to be able to discuss the finer points of fixed object experiments, table tipping, EVP, malevolent spirits and shapeshifters. – In all it’s a shameful business that has created a whole world of absolute nonsense for the credulous to explore. Most Haunted, together with Living TV must take its share of the blame.i did always wonder why phil wyman or whatever he is called is said to be at the start of the program scream team a beliver, when on most haunted is a non beliver,right?