ASSAP: Paranormal Research
ASSAP: Paranormal Education
Privacy and cookie information ASSAP mailing list

ASSAP bloggerWelcome to the ASSAP paranormal blog! Though this blog is aimed at anyone interested in the paranormal, it will be of particular interest to the paranormal research community. Updated frequently, but not regularly (don't expect something new every day!), it covers any paranormal topic, as well as highlighting recent changes to the ASSAP website. You may not notice it but this site changes on an almost daily basis.

Whenever new information becomes available on a subject ASSAP covers, it is added to the relevant pages of the website straight away. So, just because you've read a page, don't assume it will still be exactly the same when you next look. That way the ASSAP website remains an up to date research resource.

The photo (above right, pic by Val Hope) is the ASSAP blogger himself, out looking for anomalies wherever they are to be found, so that you can read about them here.

Important note: If anything in this blog does not make sense, try following the links in text! If it still doesn't make sense, that's probably my fault ...

Previous blog pages ... (including ghosts, UFOs, poltergeists, flying rods, miracles, orbs, hypnotic regression, big cats, vampires, near sleep experiences, premonitions, shadow ghosts, paranormal photos, auras, river monsters and dozens of other subjects)

29 September 2010: When is a coincidence paranormal?

Statisticians sometimes remark that most people are not good at judging odds. That's probably because our 'in-built' appreciation of odds is based on personal experience, rather than maths, which is a poor guide. But there is a more subtle affect happening, that of the frame of reference.

Suppose you take a die and throw it right now. What are the odds that you will throw a three? It is obviously one in six. But what were the odds that you would throw a three 24 hours ago? Many people would say it is still one in six. After all, a die is a die and 24 hours makes no difference. However, consider the following. One day ago you had not read this blog and therefore not been prompted to even throw a die. So we now have to consider such questions as: the odds of you reading the blog, the odds of you actually throwing a die in response and so on. Working out such odds is very difficult as they depend on events that happen to you, many of which will be beyond your control, which will affect whether you read this blog or not. All we can say with any certainty is, the odds will be significantly longer than one in six!

And what are the odds of you throwing a three today considered from a time frame several years before your parents even met? Now there are endless variables to consider and the odds, though impossible to compute, are likely to be astronomical, unless you believe everything we do is pre-destined. Suddenly, the odds of you throwing a three, right here, right now, look like an astonishingly unlikely coincidence, when considered from a time frame of many years ago.

This is one of the problems that we face when judging whether an apparently paranormal event was really a coincidence or not. People often say that the odds of such an event happening by pure chance are tiny, so it must be paranormal. But it all depends on your frame of reference. What are those odds that you just happen to walk along a particular road, at a specific time, in certain weather when the lighting throws shadows that make a tree look just like a ghost? It sounds very unlikely, but only from a time reference long before any of these factors came together. The closer you got in time to that event, with all the various contributory factors coming together, the lower the odds against it happening became. In the end, the odds of you looking up to notice the 'ghost' were probably no higher than those of throwing a three with a die. But by tracking backwards to some arbitrary time frame long before the event, it can be made to look incredibly unlikely.

Outside of simple situations like throwing dice, it is difficult to compute the odds against any event in everyday life being a pure coincidence. But coincidences DO happen all the time, it's just that those with higher odds happen less frequently. And we often overestimate those odds by looking at the event from a distant viewpoint in time. When coincidence is suggested as an explanation for a paranormal event, some people regard it as an unsatisfactory explanation. In reality, coincidences are more common than we think because we tend to have a poor appreciation of chance.

27 September 2010: Is that ring tone coming from the roof?

Starlings gathering for a winter roostThe other day I heard the familiar call of a Coot. For those unfamiliar with it, a Coot is a fairly large water bird, common on or near water in the UK. The thing is, I was nowhere near any water at the time! I looked around and confirmed that there was no such bird nearby. Then I heard another, even more familiar, bird call and realised the source of the 'Coot' call!

It was a Starling! These are familiar birds in the UK because they are common in built-up areas. They are famous for their roosting flocks in winter (photo, right) when thousands, or even millions, gather together to form huge roosts. Less well known is that they are excellent mimics. They can copy, almost perfectly, the calls of other birds they meet regularly. In urban areas they will also copy familiar noises there, like car alarms and telephone ring tones!

In other countries birds that mimic other sounds are more familiar. Here in the UK most people don't realise we have our own mimics. So when they hear a 'ring tone', apparently coming from a nearby roof, they will be bemused. The 'Coot' call I heard was so familiar that I just accepted it for a few seconds without thought. Then it hit met, you almost never see a Coot far from water. That's when I realised there was 'something wrong'.

It is just another example of the encyclopedic knowledge paranormal investigators need to understand all the possible causes of a case. There are, incidentally, one or two other birds in the UK that can mimic other sounds though they are rarer.

PS: A little while ago I put up several posts about how Sherlock Holmes would make an excellent paranormal investigator. I promised I wouldn't raise the subject again for a long time. Well, I reckon two months is a long time. So here is perhaps the most important attribute of Holmes' methods that I think would be useful to paranormal investigators.

Many people think Holmes solves cases easily because he is so clever. In reality, he often gets things wrong and only gets it right at the very end! He goes through numerous theories to explain a case, each of which he rejects in turn as new evidence emerges from the investigation. He also bounces ideas off the invaluable Dr Watson, though without revealing his thinking. This ability to admit that the first idea you had is probably wrong is invaluable to investigators.

Too many paranormal investigators only check one or two possible xenonormal causes for a case before deciding it must be paranormal. If they were to look at a few more possible causes, especially in the light of new evidence, they might solve a lot of cases which are currently considered 'unexplained'.

So, always be prepared to admit your first idea was wrong. It might be slightly painful to do but it is more likely to get you towards the truth.

24 September 2010: Shadow ghost on video?

In the second entry to the new paranormal video gallery, I've added a shadow ghost! Well, that's what it looked like at the time of filming. The 'ghost' looked like the dark head and shoulders of a sinister human figure peering out of some trees and bushes alongside a quiet lane. A close-up quickly revealed it to be a chance shadow configuration vaguely resembling a figure. However, when seen briefly, such as in the initial panning shot of the video, the figure looked real enough to catch the eye of the photographer. Note how the initial pan stops suddenly and starts to reverse. That's the photographer thinking 'what was THAT?' and going back for another look.

It is difficult to record misperception. It is a delicate 'brain state' depending on the individual involved, their state of mind and their surroundings. Change any of these factors slightly and there will be no misperception. Different people will see different things and, for many people, the misperception will not work at all. So don't be too disappointed if you don't see a figure. And, if you keep repeating the video, the chances that you will see it actually become lower. Most misperceptions are one-off events.

I am sure it is possible to produce a video that will get at least some viewers to misperceive. Video is important as it can limit viewing time, which can be crucial for misperception, like in real life. The very act of being able to study an image or object at length, and in detail, will destroy all hope of misperception. Having said that, there are some people who can see apparent faces and figures in the detail of a still photo (usually a blurred one) which is probably an extreme form of misperception (see here). However, most misperception happens in everyday real life where things are constantly on the move, even if it's just the gaze of the witness.

Although many people will not misperceive with this video, I loaded it because the original photographer DID see a figure at the time. I can't see it because I've watched the video many times. But maybe you will, at least for the first showing. At least we know it was misperceived once! So, at the very least, it illustrates the sort of conditions where misperception can occur.

21 September 2010: Why we are afraid of ghosts!

A question that I've often puzzled over is this - why are all the things I've misperceived so far appeared as human faces, figures or animals? I know I misperceive stuff all the time, as we all do, but I only seem to notice things that resemble ghostly figures or faces!

The answer might be lie in a bit of our brain called the amygdala. It is concerned primarily with emotion and memory consolidation. What is interesting here is that the amygdala reacts to perceived threats and it reacts strongly to blurry shapes in our visual field, particularly in our peripheral vision (New Scientist 15 Sep). Indeed, it reacts before we are even consciously aware of the object in our visual field. This adds another piece to the jigsaw of exactly how people misperceive things as ghosts. So here is the latest likely picture of how an actual ghost sighting might work.

Suppose someone is walking along when a poorly-lit tree appears in their peripheral vision. Their amygdala registers this as a possible threat and immediately the witness feels anxious. The witness' visual processing system does not recognise the poorly-seen tree for what it is and substitutes it with a ghostly figure instead. Only now is the object presented to the witness in their visual field - as a ghost!

So the witness is now 'aware' of a ghostly figure in their peripheral vision, having felt anxious before even consciously seeing it. The witness then turns to look at the 'figure'. Now that the tree can be seen more clearly, in central vision, it is no longer misperceived. So the 'ghostly figure' apparently 'vanishes', so 'confirming' that it was a ghost all along and no doubt sending another wave of anxiety through the witness! Of course, this only one scenario of ghost sighting but similar ideas can be used for others.

This theory may neatly explain why people are routinely afraid of ghosts! It's because our brains are telling us there is a possible threat to our personal security before we even see a ghostly figure! So, we may be afraid of ghosts because of the circumstances in which we generally see them.

And did I feel afraid when I misperceived my own ghosts? I certainly remember being surprised and sometimes getting the uncomfortable feeling that someone was watching me. To say I was 'afraid' would be going too far but, in different circumstances, such as a spooky place at night, I might have felt more anxious!

And what about the original question - why do I always misperceive objects as human and animal figures? The answer to this probably lies in evolution. Our brains have evolved to quickly spot potential threats. Throughout most of human evolution, those threats were most likely to come from other humans and animals. We don't notice all the other stuff we routinely misperceive because it is not seen as a potential threat.

20 September 2010: Daylight orb on video

The first entry in a new ASSAP video gallery (see here) has been added, showing a clip of a daylight orb. Such daylight orbs can also sometimes be seen in still photos (see here) but are more likely to be noticed in video. That's because their motion will make them more obvious. Just like 'normal' orbs, they are strongly illuminated small objects which are out of focus. Daylight orbs are usually lit by the sun rather than a camera flash. They are much more likely to be insects, water droplets, floating seeds and so on rather than dust. It is interesting to compare this clip with some of supposed UFOs (which are usually higher in the sky). Daylight orbs are more likely when the video is zooming in on distant objects. That's because zooming increases the area in front of the lens which is too close to be in focus - this is where suitable objects can appear as orbs (like the orb zone).

Many people regard a video of something paranormal as far more informative and more likely to be 'genuine' than a still photo. However, video cameras work, in essence, by taking a series of still images, or frames. So they are subject to many of the same photographic artifacts as still cameras. They certainly capture orbs, day and night, in exactly the same way as still cameras. Flying rods are normally associated with video but can be captured by still cameras too.

That isn't to say that video isn't good for paranormal research. On the contrary, I think it is the single most useful thing you can use on an investigation. Video views the world more like witnesses do. It also offers a timeline for events that still photos cannot. But, as with all instruments, it needs to be thoroughly understood.

16 September 2010: And another thing ...

I seem to be in rant mode this week. You can always skip this entry if you don't like ranting. And who does like ranting, apart from the ranter? Now's your last chance to look away ...

JayWhy do so few paranormal researchers do xenonormal research? You may say, quite reasonably, they are interested in the paranormal, not the xenonormal. Indeed, that includes me! However, the more you study paranormal cases, the more you realise that they consist mostly of xenonormal phenomena.

Look at the photo of the bird, right. Recognise it? If you live in the UK you should! Despite being large and colourful and noisy, like some exotic tropical species, it is a rarely seen common UK resident. It is surprisingly unobtrusive, generally staying hidden by foliage, though this is the easiest time of year to see it. The point is, if you don't know much natural history, how can you eliminate the effects of animals as a possible cause in a paranormal case?

No one can be expected to be an expert in physics, physiology, natural history, psychology, neuroscience and so on. But without such expertise it can be difficult to spot the possible natural causes for apparent paranormal phenomena.

This is why it is so important to do xenonormal research. We need to know about the kind of things that look like the paranormal so that we can readily recognise them and eliminate them from our enquiries. Sadly, many paranormal researchers spend their time watching the xenonormal while fondly imagining they are examining the real paranormal! It is not their fault, they just don't know what signs to look for. But if there was more information about the xenonormal out there, we could avoid all this wasted time and effort. OK, rant over, you can look again now!

15 September 2010: The paranormal community

Sometimes I look at the hundreds of paranormal groups and organisations that make up our community and despair! So many websites saying contradictory things. Anyone who is new to our subject would not know where to start or what to make of it all. Indeed, what a newbie ends up believing may depend on which group they happen to meet first!

When ASSAP first started, nearly 30 years ago, there were far fewer groups or people actively interested in the paranormal. But even then we recognised the need to pull together to make progress. Indeed, one of ASSAP's original aims was to act as a clearing house for ideas, theories and research. Looking at today's diverse and extensive paranormal community, it is clear that no such clearing house would ever get off the ground now. There are just too many people doing their own thing, pulling in different directions.

This is part of the reason why paranormal research moves so slowly. It is not just the difficulty of the subject, with little that is reproducible or predictable, but also the plethora of ideas, many contradictory, untestable and unsupported by evidence. Just compare how different groups define 'ghost' or explain the use of EMF meters in paranormal research and you will see how varied these ideas are.

Can anything be done to get people to cooperate more? Realistically, the best way forward is probably to spread good ideas. If a multitude of unsupported or untestable ideas is our downfall, maybe a few testable ones may be our salvation. A good idea is one that works. If a theory can be tested by anyone who cares to try, and it works, it is likely to spread and be accepted. That is why xenonormal research is so useful. Anyone can test theories that explain orbs, flying rods and so on and see that they are correct. By contrast, how do you test if a ghost is a spirit?

Experience has taught me that most people in our subject will always stick to their own ideas, even when they are unsupported by objective evidence. However, there are always a few people for whom such an approach is not enough. These are the people who will find testable ideas appealing and be inspired to carry out their own useful research. All we can do is produce and promote such testable ideas and let them loose in the paranormal community. And hope!

PS: This looks like another insect on a CCTV camera (see here)!

14 September 2010: An explanation for some time slip experiences?

Recently, I found myself walking along the high street of my home town, except everything looked different. It was clear I was in a previous time. Some signs in shop windows suggested it was 1940. However, there was no obvious sign of the privations of war time. Indeed, my impression was that the date was earlier, perhaps towards the start of the last century. Although I knew it was my home town, everything looked so different I barely knew where I was. It was like those old photos you see in local papers that show familiar streets in times gone by that look so different that they are unrecognisable.

Then I woke up! It was just a dream. I hardly ever dream about the past, even my own past. Generally, my dreams are set now or slightly in the future and often in places I don't recognise. So it was fascinating to dream about a historical scene for once. The dream may have been prompted by recent commemorations of the start of the blitz in the war here in the UK. However, as is typical of my dreams, there were many contradictions. I'm pretty sure the actual source of the landscape in my dreams was old photos, like those mentioned above. The scenery was even in black and white, just like the photos!

It occurred to me that if this dream material formed part of a near sleep experience (NSE), it could explain some time slip experiences. If someone went into a microsleep with dream state, the scenery around them might be replaced with a 'historical' version. This would give the strong impression of a time slip!

The thing to look for in such an account would be the contradictions and anachronisms. If the source of the 'time slip' was actually dream material, it would probably contain many errors. Instead of looking for what is correct, to confirm a real time slip, we should be looking at what is wrong, to see if it was a NSE. Only if there are no glaring errors to be found can we start to consider the possibility that it really is a slip in time.

10 September 2010: When objects blend together!

I saw something odd today. An object I knew well seemed to be twisted out of shape. It is a metal object and the force required to bend it would be considerable! I was reminded of stories of how poltergeists are reported to be able to move heavy objects.

Then I looked more closely at my object. I realised it was a form of misperception. The object was, indeed, its normal shape. However, part of it was 'missing' because, in the early morning light, it blended in perfectly with a bush behind. The result was that part of the object effectively vanished. It was a form of accidental camouflage. The effect could only occur during very specific lighting conditions. When I looked at the scene later, there was no 'blending' at all!

This sort of thing must happen all the time but, unless something looks odd or out of place (like a ghost!), most people would never notice it. It is, perhaps, particularly likely at times of low lighting, such as early morning or late evening. At such times there is less light available to show up objects separately. Though it is relatively easy to get objects to blend together in digital photographs, actually seeing this sort of thing in front of you is an eye opener!

There are still some places available on ASSAP's Training Weekend, where you can learn about scientific methods of paranormal investigation. It's a great refresher for experienced ASSAP AAIs as well as the perfect introduction for newer investigators and those moving over to the scientific method. The course is being held at Oxenwood, Wiltshire on 4-5 December 2010. You must be an ASSAP member to attend (easily done here). To book, use this form. For queries email here.

8 September 2010: The importance of words to perception, misperception and the paranormal

As outlined below, our brains build generic models of objects so that they can be recognised in future. We know a car when we see one, even if we've never seen that particular model before. Our brains also label that generic model with a name, such as 'car', for instance. That link between word and model is important for perception!

In experiments (New Scientist 4 Sep), participants found it more difficult to remember the details of individual objects they'd seen if they are asked to categorise them by type. The reason is that once an object is labeled in our brains, we remember the generic prototype rather than an individual item. This explains why, when we misperceive a poorly-seen tree as a ghost, we cannot identify the figure or even describe it in detail (though such 'details' may be obtained by poor interview technique, producing confabulation). When people hear particular words, it can actually affect their perception. It is easier to spot upward motion in a complex moving picture if someone says the word 'rise'!

Can words, either written or spoken, affect misperception as well as perception? There doesn't seem to be any research done on this yet but it is easy to see that it might work. Suppose someone misperceives a tree as a ghost and tells someone standing next to them what they are seeing. It could increase the likelihood of the second witness also misperceiving a ghost. Of course, they might both misperceive the same tree as a ghost anyway but talking could increase the chances that both 'see' the same thing. And what would happen if the second person says 'what figure? Near that tree?'. That might make the first witness stop misperceiving and recognise the tree!

Words are more powerful than we previously thought in their effects on our brain. Unfortunately, when most people see something weird they are more likely to say 'can you see that figure over there?' rather than 'can you see something weird over there?'. Many people hold up multiply witnessed events as more compelling evidence than single witness events. However, in reality there may be little difference if the observation is discussed by the group during the observation.

6 September 2010: Where misperception happens

Everyone has seen those optical illusions which flip between one interpretation and another, seemingly at will. The picture does not change, of course, so the brain must be changing its mind. Recent research (see this week's New Scientist, naturally) suggests that the bits of the brain responsible are the superior parietal lobes (SPL).

The SPL may be responsible for deciding what a poorly seen image really is, and so possibly causing misperception when the answer is wrong! So, as all brains vary a bit, this is the area whose size and development may determine how much an individual misperceives.

I had a massive misperception today! I saw a bright reflection in a car windscreen as someone leaning over the vehicle! Almost instantly the 'figure' vanished, leaving me bemused. Though I have had misperceptions from random patterns of light and shade before, this one was interesting because the 'figure' extended well beyond the patch of light causing it. My brain had extended the 'figure' despite there being nothing there to suggest any such thing being physically present. It's no wonder the misperception vanished so quickly. I still find it fascinating that misperceptions can extend beyond the strict boundaries of the objects causing them, though.

I am beginning to wonder if I am particularly prone to misperception. But if that's so, how come I never noticed them until recently? The brain truly is a remarkable machine!

3 September 2010: Strange sounds in the night

Though the weather in the UK has picked up in the last few days, it has generally been cool for summer recently. Despite that, it has been necessary to keep a window open at night to get a good sleep on occasion. One night recently I was woken by some loud sounds, apparently of objects being wheeled or dragged noisily around from the street. They sounded very close so I got up to look. I was expecting to see someone getting into their car, perhaps going out because of some domestic crisis. That was what the sounds suggested to me.

Instead, there was nothing moving in the well-lit street. The loud sounds continued, apparently almost directly beneath my window but I could see nothing. By now I was truly confused and wondering if this might be a ghost!

foxThen I saw them - a group of foxes! They emerged from below me, stopped and turned to watch as the loud noise continued. Finally, they were joined by another fox, presumably the author of the racket which had just stopped. I was at a loss as to how these foxes could have created such a loud noise.

Once it was daylight, I went out to look and saw some heavy plastic boxes that a fox could probably move without too much difficulty. I guess they were investigating the contents of the boxes, looking for food. My assumption that it was a neighbour going out to their car was based only on the most likely scenario I could imagine rather than any solid evidence.

I have described in previous years how our local foxes routinely move small objects around our neighbourhood, particularly shoes! Now, it seems, they are also capable of making loud mechanical noises that sound quite convincingly like those of human activity. I am more convinced than ever that reports of strange noises outside at night are more likely foxes than ghosts, at least round here!

1 September 2010: Perception, consciousness and the paranormal

Gull UFOOne of the things that puzzles me is the number of people who are trying to find out if, and how, extra-sensory perception might work, despite knowing little or nothing about how ordinary perception works. Similarly, there are those paranormal researchers who think that consciousness is a state that can occur independently of the human brain, while knowing little about current scientific research into the subject. I think every paranormal researcher should start by understanding the normal. Only then will they understand how the paranormal can be distinguished from it.

Until recently, comparatively little was known about perception and consciousness but that is no longer the case. There is an article about these subjects in this week's New Scientist (30 Aug). Rather than summarise its relevance to paranormal studies, I will describe what is currently known about perception and consciousness including material from that article where relevant.

The most 'important' sense is vision. That's because it contains more detail than the other senses and provides us with a direct view of the world around us. It is the sense we believe over others when there is a conflict between them.

The first thing to understand about vision is that the view of the outside world we see in our heads is produced by our brains. Although it obviously uses sensory input from our eyes, they are only the starting point. The view we see of the world is divided into objects by our brains, even those partially obscured by other objects in front of them. Either way, the picture we see is essentially built up piece by piece, as each visual object is inserted in our view, rather than assembled pixel by pixel like a digital camera.

The next thing to realise is that perception works in parallel. One part of our brains deals with object shapes, another with colour, another with texture and so on. Only when each object is re-assembled from these component parts is it presented to our consciousness. By that time the object has been recognised and identified by our brains. This is an important point because, sometimes, when an object cannot be seen well, such as in low light, it can be substituted by a 'generic' version of the object from memory. And sometimes, if this process goes wrong, the poorly-seen object may be misidentified and the wrong object substituted in. This is how we sometimes see a poorly-seen tree as a human figure, or ghost! The human figure is inserted into our vision and looks completely authentic. Things like perspective, lighting, overlapping objects and so one are all taken into account. We really SEE that human figure, sometimes in detail, despite it actually being a tree, because that's what our brain shows us (see visual substitutions)!

The fact that different bits of the brain process different aspects of the object's image may be where mistakes happen in identification. If the different bits come together and apparently conflict, the brain must decide which of several possibilities is the most likely match. Context comes into play here. For instance, something resembling a human figure standing on the ground will probably be seen as a figure. The same object up in the air might be interpreted as something else, because people don't fly!

Our brains contain a library of visual objects with which to match objects seen. These are produced from experience, seeing the world. They are not specific examples of things we've seen but rather generic models, composed of subparts. For instance, these might be shape, colour, shininess, smoothness of surface and so on. Our brains can manipulate these models so that we recognise an object from an angle we've never seen it before. We can even recognise new types of the same object that we've never seen before. So we don't have to see every type of car in the world to recognise a brand new model as a car.

There seems to be nothing in this library of visual models that marks an object as fictional. We have all see flying saucers in science fiction movies. If we see something similar in real life, we are likely to think it is an alien spacecraft. It is only on reflection that we might think it has to be something else because 'flying saucers don't exist'! Obviously, that last bit assumes the viewer does not think UFOs are alien spacecraft. If they BELIEVE in alien visitations then the sighting will simply confirm what they believe, whatever the physical reality of the object in the sky (see UFOs).

And what of consciousness? With all this stuff going on in the unconscious part of our brains, once objects are recognised and assembled, they are added to our conscious vision. You can view consciousness as a summary of all the sensory inputs that our unconscious brains have managed to recognise and assemble. There will be objects that cannot be identified or assembled which will continue to exist but only in our unconscious. Though we are not aware of these partial visual objects, they can still affect how we think. We might get a 'feeling' about a scene without consciously noticing what is causing that impression. This might manifest as an 'instinct' or 'sixth sense'. Maybe we don't consciously see the real human figure in a dark, lonely alleyway at night but might, nevertheless have a sense of 'someone there'. Of course, this could also be simply anxiety, perfectly natural in such a situation. We could get the same feeling even if there was no one there. If our 'feeling' is confirmed, the experience could be labeled as psychic.

It is obvious from this account that some apparently paranormal experiences may be caused by ordinary sensory perception. Any paranormal theory that assumes consciousness is separate from a human brain also needs to explain how all the above happens without neurons! Anyway, that's all for now. More on this in future!

The lowest photo on this page shows a UFO photographed recently in Paris. The full story is here.

For a review of paranormal research in the noughties, see here.

Last month's (August) website figures are an average of 8217 hits per day. This is up on the previous month's 7995.


Previous blog pages ...

  • Aug 2010 (including Parisian UFO, sense of presence, SLI, consulting experts, misperception)
  • Jul 2010 (including Sherlock Holmes as a paranormal investigator, haunting sounds, what ARE hallucinations)
  • Jun 2010 (including the Loch Ness Monster, gorilla video, getting ghost stories the wrong way round)
  • May 2010 (including ball lightning, Wem ghost photo, waking up twice, eyewitnesses, Robin Hood)
  • Apr 2010 (including causes of road ghosts, new orb evidence, bird UFOs, UFO photo, not quite seeing is believing)
  • Mar 2010 (including experiencing hypnagogia, consciousness, belief, prolonged misperception, doppelganger)
  • Feb 2010 (including visual continuity errors - AKA ghosts, near sleep experiences on trains, spontaneous OOBEs)
  • Jan 2010 (including intelligent oil, SLI, inducing OOBEs, orange UFOs, the bleak midwinter)
  • Dec 2009 (including review of research in the noughties, pretty orbs, imperceptions, river monster)
  • Nov 2009 (including EVP without a recorder, demons and entities, why only some people see ghosts)
  • Oct 2009 (including grey ghost, near sleep experiences, a triangular UFO and seeing David Beckham)
  • Sep 2009 (including latent memory, Tufted Puffin, Bermuda Triangle and garden poltergeist)
  • Aug 2009 (including official UFO files, partial ghosts, flying rods and miracles)
  • Jul 2009 (including garden poltergeist, big cat video, orbs and hypnotic regression)
  • Jun 2009 (including thoughts from nowhere, shadow ghosts, premonitions and metallic UFO)
  • May 2009 (including analysing paranormal photos, making ghosts and ghost lore)
  • Apr 2009 (including phantom bird, choice blindness and grass that gets up and walks away)
  • Mar 2009 (including deja vu, ghostly mists, weird UFO photo, white ghosts and naked eye orbs)
  • Feb 2009 (including hidden memories, coincidences, auras and window UFOs)
  • Jan 2009 (including animals sensing ghosts, vampires, flying rod season and a haunted path)
  • Dec 2008
  • Nov 2008
  • Oct 2008
  • Sep 2008
  • Aug 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Even older

© Maurice Townsend 2010