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.Originally Posted by MRT
The Theatre Royal, Newcastle 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 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 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.
Ouch!
Nice ghost info!
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
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 :)
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.
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
bruno.j
Last edited by bruno.j; 19th October 2007 at 07:41 PM.
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.
hello - please re read the post- 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
Bruno .j
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"?
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
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
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
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.
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 ;-)
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.
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"?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks