Welcome 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. To contact the ASSAP blog, email 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)
ASSAP @ 30: A series of posts summarising what we have learned through thirty years of ASSAP, whose anniversary was 10 June. See here!
NB: WDTHDWP = 'what does this have to do with the paranormal'
26 September: Did that stick just move?
Briefly standing motionless, I happened to look down at the ground and noticed something odd. A small stick moved! Had there been even a breath of wind, I'd have found it unsurprising. But, given that sticks don't usually move by themselves, I was intrigued by this strange event!
I soon realised what it was. The 'stick' was actually a grasshopper. It was brown and, though not too difficult to spot in green grass, was well camouflaged among early autumn leaf litter. Grasshoppers don't only get around by jumping, as you may suppose, but also walk (or at least clamber) on the ground. Indeed, grasshoppers can also fly, something also not generally realised. This particular grasshopper, however, was just walking and giving a passable impression of a small moving stick.
It is yet another example of how many apparently weird or paranormal experiences are caused by perfectly normal things that the witness just does not happen to know about - the xenonormal, in other words. To someone who did know that grasshoppers could walk, and did not realise that some species are a very similar colour to twigs, it could easily look as though a stick had moved by itself, possibly paranormally.
So why don't more people report mysterious moving sticks? Well, I only noticed this particular incident because, in common with other birders, I have developed an unusually acute ability to notice slight movements in a scene. A great way to spot birds, when they are not immediately obvious, is to look for slight movements as they flit through vegetation or take short flights. After a while, you start to notice slight movements in any given scene, even when you don't want to. Most people, by contrast, tend to notice little about the scenery they move through, particularly when in a familiar area. And because most people are not paying much attention to their surroundings, when they DO notice something odd, they more likely to be unaware of its natural cause. This is exactly the kind of situation that can lead to a paranormal report.
This does pose a problem for paranormal researchers. It means we all have to be experts in a wide range of subjects, ranging from natural history and meteorology to physics and geology! This is clearly unrealistic. Instead we should make a 'best guess' at a likely cause and then consult a relevant expert. What may appear bizarrely unusual to the average member of the public (or even a paranormal researcher) may be simply explainable by an appropriate expert.
And the photo? There's a bird in there somewhere. Look for movement ...
24 September: Strange blobs and mists
One of the commonest types of anomalous photo I come across contains a hazy blob or transparent mist. People often say they can see faces or figures in these amorphous shapes and so wonder if they might be ghosts. Generally I can't see these faces or figures myself but I've no reason to doubt that others see them. There have been many instances where I've seen a face or figure in a blurred photo that no one else can apparently see! Whether and how we see such shapes, when they are not obvious to everyone, seems to vary significantly from person to person.
In the example here (right) there is an amorphous orange blob in the middle of the photo of vegetation. The blob appears to be floating in front of greenery and it is translucent, allowing us to see through it. There is a popular idea that ghosts are translucent though it appears to be confined largely to fiction. The vast majority of real life ghosts are reported by witnesses to look perfectly solid and you cannot see through them. Their apparent solidity does not stop them from vanishing sometimes!
These photos are usually caused by some (non-paranormal) object in the foreground of the photo but so close to the camera that it is severely out of focus. Here is the same photo (right) but now focussed on the foreground object which is revealed to be a rosehip, or something very similar. It is interesting to note that there is a stalk clearly visible, to which the rosehip is attached. But this is too out of focus in the earlier photo to show up, giving the impression of a floating blob. Also, note that the vegetation background is now severely out of focus. You can just about make out the branches on the bottom right corner of the photo which correspond with those in the picture above.
Often, the photographer who took such a shot (above right) will not remember there being anything in the foreground. But, typically, such blobs or mists are only noticed well after the photo was taken so they are not in a position to check. And even if they notice the blob at the time, the object causing it may already have moved on. Unlike the obligingly stationary rosehip, such objects may include flying insects, floating seeds (like dandelion) or even something the photographer is carrying or wearing that is intruding into the photo. So, in many cases, it is not possible to say what the object was exactly.
19 September: What ghosts tell us about consciousness
Why do I keep seeing the door ghost (door what?)? The answer to this simple question may have surprisingly profound implications for consciousness.
Here's the difficulty. I know the door ghost is a misperception of my own hand, reflected in a frosted glass window and seen in peripheral vision. It appears frequently, particularly when I'm not actively looking for it. But here's the thing; I KNOW it is only my own hand! Even when I am actually watching the ghost I am fully aware I am actually seeing my own hand. And yet an amorphous dark figure still stands there, slightly menacingly, just behind me. If I move my hand or change my angle of view, the figure disappears instantly. So, if I KNOW it is only my hand, why do I keep seeing it as a shadow ghost?
This is where consciousness comes in. The 'I' that knows I am misperceiving is clearly the conscious part of my brain. But, clearly, the unconscious part of my brain never learns from its perceptual error. So I keep seeing the ghost. It suggests that the conscious part of the brain cannot directly affect what is going on in at least some parts of the unconscious bit.
But why doesn't the unconscious part of my brain ever learn about its mistake for itself? We know that unconscious bit of the brain is perfectly capable of learning stuff. When you learn to ride a bicycle, for instance, it is an unconscious process whereby you learn how to manipulate your muscles in such a way that you maintain balance when riding. Interestingly, even when you can consciously influence a skill that has been developed unconsciously, it tends to cause problems. Ask a golf player to concentrate on just how they are physically playing a shot, while they are actually playing it, and they tend to perform less well than usual.
So why can't my brain learn that it is misperceiving? My guess would be that the perception system in the brain deliberately does not remember every mistake it has made in the past. If it did, it would have to 'look up' all previous mistakes in memory all the time, to check for errors, during normal perception. And that would probably slow down the business of perception enough to become a serious problem. In the trade off between accuracy and speed, the brain chooses speed.
This means that a witness who is misperceiving a ghost can see it again and again, every time they are in the right position and in appropriate lighting conditions. This will serve to confirm, for the witness at least, that they really are seeing an objective ghostly figure and not simply imagining it or hallucinating. However, while it is quite true that they are neither imagining or hallucinating, neither are they seeing an objective figure. And if the witness thinks they cannot be fooled by the same misperception twice, they are wrong.
And the profound bit? Well, we tend to think of consciousness as 'running the show' in the brain. It is the bit we think of as 'me', the seat of awareness, the essence of being. But this implicit assumption that consciousness is 'in charge' of the brain appears to be wrong. There are bits of the brain's unconscious workings that we apparently cannot affect. When people say 'I know what I saw', they are just wrong. They are actually consciously experiencing an edited version of reality, filtered by the unconscious part of their brains according to rules most people are not aware of. And sometimes, as in some apparent paranormal reports, that edited version is a long way from objective physical reality.
17 September: ASSAP Ghost and UFO survey
Do you believe in ghosts? Or UFOs? Luckily, that was NOT the wording used for questions in a survey recently commissioned by ASSAP to address public beliefs in these anomalous phenomena. The survey, conducted by YouGov, took place 28-30 August, and the headline results were announced briefly at the Seriously Strange conference last week. There is a summary of the main points in this article.
If, however, you'd like to look at the survey results themselves (including the precise question wording) , they are here (PDF format). There figures are broken down by categories such as gender, age, working status, marital status, location, education and so on. The figures go across several pages so the top set refer to ghosts and the bottom set to UFOs on each page. The 'disagree' figures are highlighted in blue, the 'agree' figures in yellow and 'not sure' in green, to make them easier to follow. You can play with the figures endlessly, making comparisons between categories. I'll leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions!
16 September: Ghosts going round in pairs
In the past fortnight I've visited two museum and I saw a pair ghosts in each! Museums are a lot more exciting these days than when I was a kid, it seems.
I ought to make it clear right now that I have reasons to believe they were not actual ghosts at all. Both pairs of figures were hanging around together in period costume. I'm not a historian but the costumes appeared appropriate to the ages of the two rather old buildings. You don't often see people in period costume so they always attract attention. My first reaction on seeing such figures is always to wonder if they might be ghosts. Years as a ghost researcher have their effect.
So, as is usual on such occasions, I studied the figures closely for a while. In one case, the pair starting taking photos of each other with a phone, which led me to write them off quite quickly as ghosts. The other pair I approached closely. Though I didn't speak to them, others did. It quickly became obvious that these were also non-ghosts, presumably there to add to the 'atmosphere' of their surroundings.
I've seen people in period costume at museums before but usually acting out some advertised reconstruction. I was once asked to answer a question by a 'teacher' in a 'Victorian schoolroom' populated largely by twentieth century adults seated uncomfortably on tiny chairs. I got the correct answer (spelling, I think), unlike some less fortunate 'pupils'.
The idea of having people just 'hanging around' in period costume at museums, unadvertised and unannounced, appears to be more modern. It could easily give rise to reports of ghosts. Although it is highly unlikely that anyone actually seeing one of these figures (or do they always go around in pairs?) closely would think they were a ghost, what about photos? If the photographer never noticed the costumed figure at the time they took the photo, seeing them in the photograph later could produce an interesting reaction.
One curious thing I've noticed is that, from the thousands of anomalous photos I've personally examined, few, if any, featured figures in period costume. I'm not sure why this should be. But I would not be surprised if we didn't start seeing a trickle of such photos in future, all taken in museums or at ancient monuments.
11 September: Seriously Strange games - the results are in!
The results for Paranormal Games held at last weekend's Seriously Strange conference are finally here. Just follow this link to see them.
One particular point of interest is the 'find the lady' game. In this, participants were presented with a grid of playing cards, all face down. There were 35 cards in total. One of the cards was the Queen of Hearts and participants had to say, by whatever paranormal method they preferred, which one it was. There was only one correct guess out from the 66 participants who took part.
So, what were the odds of getting the correct answer by random chance? Anyone who read the blog from two days ago will guess it is not 1 in 35! Once again, it depends on where the target was placed within the grid. With only one hit it is fair to say that it is unlikely that the answers to this game were obtained paranormally. So the spread of answers, shown in the photo here, reveal something about the natural cognitive spatial biases of the the participants.
The most obvious bias is, like the gold earring dowsing test (see photo), towards the centre and avoiding the edges of the grid. I had speculated before that answers to the dowsing test may have avoided the edges of the map because it was too far away to go to hide the earring. However, we see a very similar centric bias with the 'find the lady' grid, suggesting there may be a more fundamental cognitive spatial bias at work in both games. I still think that the secondary bias towards buildings in the dowsing tests has different causes, as outlined below.
If this 'find the lady' game was repeated many times without a target, and with many people, it would be possible to plot the spatial bias of a representative section of the population. It should then be possible to mathematically describe the bias so that you could produce the odds of anyone picking the correct answer in any particular position by pure chance. My guess is that the spatial bias is probably a relatively simple statistical distribution pattern. The odds are clearly much higher along the edges of the grid compared to the middle. Indeed, if you wanted to get lots of hits for such experiments, you need only place your target in the middle!
All of this tends to reinforce the idea that the choice of targets can affect the results of psi experiments. Just as in the xenonormal approach to field work, where we study possible natural causes of apparent paranormal sightings, a similar approach looks advisable in controlled experiments. It is vital to establish what a typical group of people would actually give as answers to any particular experiment when there is NO target present before doing any live runs. This is clearly an area where lots of research can, and should, be done.
People don't think randomly. Neither are they neutral recorders of their surroundings. It is only by studying their natural biases, whether cognitive or perceptual, that we can hope to separate the truly paranormal from the merely unlikely.
10 September: Time to lose the plot?
The following account is based on a true story.
Writers of ghost fiction do not generally use accounts of real cases for their work. This was what I picked up from watching a panel at ASSAP's Seriously Strange conference. The panel, called "Ghost Fiction and Ghost Fact: Storytelling and Paranormal Research Panel", consisted of Stephen Volk, Tim Lebbon, Simon Kurt Unsworth, John Llewellyn Probert and Reece Shearsmith. Described as "a panel of acclaimed writers of supernatural tales", they ought to know.
Many people become interested in the paranormal through a dramatic strange incident in their own lives. As such, they tend to 'believe' in the paranormal from then onwards. Not me. I came to it through fictional accounts, particularly on TV. I was mainly motivated by a desire to get a scientific understanding of these phenomena. I didn't 'believe' or 'disbelieve', I just wanted to understand.
So, when I started investigating cases for myself I was surprised by what I found. It wasn't a bit like the fictional ghost stories. A typical real haunting case consists of a series of odd incidents at a particular location. These incidents might include sightings of apparitions, unexplained sounds and smells, objects apparently moving around (I say 'apparent' because they are rarely observed to move but instead are found in different places to where they were left), small areas may appear unusually cold, and so on.
Now, you'll find similar elements to these in fictional ghost stories too. But the difference is that in fictional stories there will usually be other important elements too. For instance, the apparitions might appear for an extended period, unlike their fleeting appearance in real life. And they might talk, something the real ones seldom, if ever, do. And the activities of fictional ghosts usually have a purpose, even if it is obscure at first. The plot of many ghost stories consists of the human protagonists discovering that purpose, through historical research and/or direct contact with the ghost. By contrast, the events that make up real hauntings typically appear completely pointless.
The reasons for this difference, something else I picked up from the panel, was that a fiction audience want a definite plot, not just a series of meaningless incidents. As consumers of fiction, we find stories with plots much more satisfying. We want our characters to face problems and overcome them. We like a resolution to a story. Though I find the meaningless unexplained fascinating I can see how most people don't.
I wonder if this desire for a satisfying story is where the assumption-led investigation methods of the ghost hunting boom come from. The assumption-led methods are clearly inspired by the idea that ghosts are spirits. More than that, such investigations are often aimed at identifying ghosts with former inhabitants of the haunted location and determining why their spirit might be returning. Note how this endeavour closely parallels the plot of many fictional ghost stories.
If, instead of assumption-led methods, you use evidence-led techniques, the idea then becomes to understand, and hopefully explain, the originally reported set of apparently meaningless unexplained events. If you do that you quickly realise that most ghost sightings can be explained by misperception, hallucination and coincidence. Once you realise that, it quickly becomes obvious why hauntings appear so meaningless. Indeed, that very meaninglessness should be a big clue to what is really go on here. To me, understanding the mechanisms behind hauntings is fascinating enough without my feeling the need to turn it into a story. I love stories but I love truth more.
No ghosts were hurt in the production of this blog post.
9 September: What a gold earring can tell us about the paranormal
The task was easy - find a hidden gold earring. The materials provided to assist with the search were a map of the area where the earring was hidden, a dowsing pendulum and the other earring of the pair! Should be easy, yes? Well, it was a good thing that the owner of the earring remembered where it was because no one found it on the map.
For those who weren't there, I'm referring to one of the tasks at the Paranormal Games event at ASSAP's Seriously Strange conference last weekend. A question that intrigued me, and others, was what were the odds of locating the earring by chance. The map was laid with a regular grid of squares. To 'win' someone had to name the correct grid square. So what are the odds?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was a grid of 20 by 20 squares. That would give a total of 400 grid squares to choose from. So you'd have a 1 in 400 chance of getting the right answer by pure chance. Well, maybe if you were a random number generator you might. But people don't actually think randomly, even if it can feel like it sometimes. So what ARE the real odds, then?
To find out, we decided to plot people's actual answers on the map itself. Assuming people were not using any paranormal ability then the plotted answers ought to reflect any general bias among the group of 65 or so participants. Given that no one got even near the right answer, it's probably safe to say that they weren't using any paranormal ability, though this could be tested with a control experiment which I'll discuss later.
Anyway, there were two fairly obvious biases in the distribution of answers. Firstly, most were in or around the buildings on campus, general avoiding the parkland areas. Secondly, most answers were away from the edges of the map with a noticeable concentration in the central area. What might cause these apparent biases? Obviously, it's only speculation but I wonder if, unconsciously, people are asking themselves, if I was hiding the earring, where would I put it? And the answer is somewhere near or in a building where it be easy to remember and retrieve. Out in the parkland there would be fewer useful landmarks available. And the areas near the edge of the map may just be too far to bother going! But that's just speculation, of course. It would be interesting to research reasons for any biases!
So back to the odds question. Given the observed biases, it is clear that the odds of finding the earring in any particular square will vary depending on its location. If the earring was in a central location near a building, the odds of getting a correct answer would be dramatically lower than if it was near the edge of the campus in parkland. The earring was, in this case, near the edge of the campus, though not far from a building. Had it been placed centrally, no doubt at least one person, possibly several, would have got the answer right. And remember, all of this assumes no paranormal ability is used!
The 'target dependence' is a problem with some psi experiments. We had a picture test which also illustrated the problem. Participants had to guess the contents of a concealed picture. Many of the answers received were of boats, houses, trees or people. Had the target actually been any of those, we would have had many correct answers by pure chance. A target of, say, the moon would, by contrast, get few hits by blind chance.
Does this matter? Yes, because experimenters use odds to calculate how likely it is that someone got a correct answer by pure chance. And if the odds are millions to one against, many people would say it was impressive evidence of the use of psi. So anything the alters those odds can dramatically affect whether a result appears paranormal or not. One obvious way to correct such biases is to repeat the experiment a huge number of times with a vast variety of different targets. But this could still leave a bias present, depending on the details of how the experiment is run. However, the gold earring test suggests another possible way forward - a control experiment.
With a control experiment you might get each subject to do a number of identical tests, some with and some without any actual target. Suppose we do the map dowsing test, for instance. Each subject would be presented with a map to dowse twice with a gap of, say, an hour, between the two trials. However, only in one of the trials would there actually be a target present in the physical area depicted by the map. And nobody, apart from the person hiding the target, would know in which hour the target was present or where it was. You could use the distribution of guesses on the 'non-target trial', where only chance is assumed to operate, to work out the odds of someone guessing where the target was by pure chance.
I haven't thought this through in practical detail and I'm sure there are problems with the scheme that would need ironing out but you get the idea. You are no longer assuming humans guess randomly, which they obviously don't, but seeing where they might actually tend to guess without any target being around. It might well be possible to produce realistic odds for any particular target square taking into account the observed distribution of guesses in the control trial. I suspect the odds for many squares in the test described here would be significantly less than 1 in 400, thereby making hits far less dramatic in those locations.
5 September: Shape shifting for beginners
I glanced at the small group of people, briefly, as I was walking down the road. All I noticed was that there were two adults and two children and that one of the adults was wearing a T-shirt with a highly distinctive motif. I wouldn't have looked again had I not been stuck watching traffic while trying to cross the busy road. I was shocked to see that it was one of the children, not an adult, who was actually wearing the distinctive T-shirt! Shocked but not dismayed. It has, after all, happened before!
There have been previous occasions when I've noticed some detail about a group of objects (not always people) which I've glanced at briefly, only to realise, following a longer look, that I'd made a crucial perceptual mistake. Specifically, I've 'transferred' the features of one object in the group to another! It's always the same - a quite particular 'perceptual glitch'. It involves groups of fairly similar objects, glimpsed for only for a second or two, close together in my visual field. I do wonder how widespread this particular perceptual glitch is. No doubt psychologists have a name for it! To me, it appears to be a very specific class of 'glance misperception'.
So far, all the examples I've experienced have been of objects at around the same distance from me. I don't know if objects merely in line of sight, but at radically different distances, might be similarly affected. It seems likely as they are close together visually. If the brain can't, from a quick glance, sort out correctly who is wearing a T-shirt then I doubt it can decide how far they are away either. One of the impressive features of this latest example was that the the T-shirt needed to be 'resized' to be transferred perceptually from a child to an adult. Clearly, significant 'shape shifting' is not a problem to this kind of misperception.
The sort of perceptual glitch described here could easily affect, or even be the main driver behind, reports of the paranormal. Attributes of one object could be 'transferred' to another visually adjacent, giving it an anomalous appearance. And a later, more prolonged, examination of the same object will see it 'resume' its real appearance. This could, therefore, offer a clue to how some objects may appear to 'shape shift' in certain reports. It is important in such cases to see if the object was viewed continuously and, if not, whether the initial sighting was brief and maybe with a group of other things.
Here's an imaginary scenario I've dreamt up. Suppose a plane is flying behind a group of birds, in the same line of sight. Someone who glanced up at the group for a second might misattribute a bird shape onto the plane. Then, if they looked up again at the plane a little later, it would look normal. Is it just a plane, the witness might ask themselves? Or a shape-shifting UFO?
2 September: Why people don't photograph ghosts.
With the widespread use of mobile phones, more people carry round a camera, for more of the time, than ever before. So why don't they take photos of ghosts?
I realise there are contentious assumptions in that question, so let's go back a bit. Firstly, the number of ghost photos being sent to ASSAP is undoubtedly increasing. That could, of course, be due to increased ASSAP visibility on the web, but I strongly suspect most of it actually reflects a big increase in the number of anomalous photos being taken. But in the overwhelming majority of such photos, no ghost was actually SEEN by any witness at the time the photo was taken, so there is no evidence that one was even present. And, on close examination, the vast majority of these photos (where no ghost was actually seen) turn out to be photographic artefacts.
What I am talking about in my original question is someone seeing a ghost and then taking its photo. The number of such cases is incredibly small. And those photos that ARE taken in such circumstances usually show no ghost. So what is going on?
I have some experience of seeing ghosts (as regular readers will know), probably far more than the average member of the population. I have also examined many reports from others who have seen ghosts. So, I have some appreciation of what the experience is like. And there are three important points about these reports that affect whether someone takes a photo or not. Firstly, sightings are quick. Seconds is a normal duration and minutes unusually long. This gives little time for anyone to take a photo. Secondly, ghost sightings always seem to be unexpected. People hardly ever see ghosts when they are actually looking for them. So, witnesses rarely have the presence of mind to even consider taking a photo. Thirdly, many people are not even aware they are seeing a ghost at the time of the sighting. It often only becomes obvious afterwards, if the figure vanishes, for instance. And if witnesses ARE aware they are looking at a ghost at the time, they have a tendency to stare at it, not wishing to look away. Seeing something extraordinary is not an experience to be cut short. It may never happen again! Taking a photo means looking away from the ghost and it might vanish while the witness is fumbling for their phone! I get the same feeling when I see a rare bird - it's difficult to look away! I usually only get a photo of a bird if it hangs around for a while, much longer than the average ghost sighting.
And even on the incredibly rare occasions when people do see a ghost AND photograph it, most of the time there is nothing unusual in the resulting photo! This is not that surprising when you consider that most ghosts are misperception or hallucination. The photo above shows a ghostly woman I saw once. Except it doesn't! It shows the reed bed scene where, seconds before, I had quite clearly seen the figure of an old woman. It was a typical example of a misperception and such effects don't work if you can study them at leisure in a photo. They are usually seen in brief glimpses or peripheral vision or in poor lighting conditions, none of which applies in a well exposed still photo.
So there you have it - why people don't (usually) take photos of ghosts! And why it isn't that exciting even when they do. So, although there are more people carrying cameras than ever before, sadly it doesn't mean we are going to get many more photos of ghosts. But we WILL get a lot more photographic artefacts.
|For a review of paranormal research in the noughties, see here.
Last month's (August) website figures are an average of 10720 hits per day. This is significantly up on the previous month's 10092 daily average as well as the August 2012 figure.
Previous blog pages ...
- Aug 2013 (including ghosts in plain view, mystery photo, seeing faces, ear pointing, shadow presence, time distortion)
- July 2013 (including floating ghosts, on being a ghost, ghost ducks, follow that ghost - yes, ghosts galore)
- June 2013 (including transparent ghosts, distance of UFOs, other stuff going on while witnessing anomalous phenomena)
- May 2013 (including ghost seen AND photographed, time distortion, reproducing anomalous phenomena)
- Apr 2013 (including door ghost moving, UFOs from a train, missing time, reality glitches, EVP without E, weird photos)
- Mar 2013 (including witness credibility, distraction to see ghosts, movie in real life, photo or witness)
- Feb 2013 (including possible orb comeback, OBEs go mainstream, walking ghost, feelings without touch, object movement)
- Jan 2013 (including a big problem with ghost vigils, time distortions, cryptids, snow ghosts and rods, causes of hauntings)
- Dec 2012 (including mysterious injuries, ghosts versus people, voice from nowhere, experimenting with a ghost)
- Nov 2012 (including reflected ghost, isolated EVPs, ghosts talking to each other, invisible presences)
- Oct 2012 (including ghostly presence, shadow ghost, strange pigeons, window ghosts, hallucinations)
- Sep 2012 (including yellow grass, weird waterfalls, vanishing buzzard, ghost vigils, slowing down time)
- Aug 2012 (including seeing unknown animals, glowing lampposts, EMF meters as an accident of history)
- July 2012 (including turning rods into orbs, psychic insight, making insects spell, glowing eyes, haunting hot spots)
- June 2012 (including doppelganger mystery, not expecting ghosts, anecdotal evidence, credible witnesses)
- May 2012 (including lenticular cloud, ghost encounter, ghost train, weird stuff in a tree, van Gogh, resolution)
- Apr 2012 (including naturalists and ghosts, odd feelings during OBE, wrong kind of sound, voice from nowhere)
- Mar 2012 (including jogging and ghosts, misty ghosts, image noise, full spectrum photography, EVP of machines)
- Feb 2012 (including ghost car, analyzing anomalous photos, ghost at rock concert, OBEs and motion sickness)
- Jan 2012 (including stopping flying rods, photographing fairies, time warp, a ghost tie, ghostly fingers, New Year UFOs)
- Dec 2011 (including missing time, improving ghost vigils, anomalous photos, ghostly faces, seeing fiction)
- Nov 2011 (including OBE video games, EVP and VLF, whatshisname, paranormal misconceptions, invisible ghosts)
- Oct 2011 (including smartphone ghosts, similacrum, smell of ghosts, morphing UFOs, slowing time)
- Sep 2011 (including tidy ghost, MADS, transparent ghost, big announcement, ghost fox, not alone)
- Aug 2011 (including cold spots, spectral hound, triangular UFO, ghost photos, rushing air and being dragged)
- July 2011 (including Hilary Evans, Harry Potter, witness investment, bias in paranormal research, TV detectives)
- June 2011 (including ASSAP @ 30, detecting lies, hyper-vigilence, strange thunder)
- May 2011 (including ASSAP @ 30, lone shoes, flying rods, bias, early memories, strange floating object)
- Apr 2011 (including royal wedding, mirror touch synaesthesia, sleep disorders, new ghost sighting)
- Mar 2011 (including roof heron, Atlantis, first time witnesses, comparing film to digital paranormal photos)
- Feb 2011 (including predicting the future, ghost bird, time slip, weird floor, what do we really know about paranormal)
- Jan 2011 (including the ghost hunting boom, orange UFO, EVP experiment, extreme normality)
- Dec 2010 (including microsleeps and road ghosts, shadow ghost in snow, lack of ghosts in photos, anthropomorphism)
- Nov 2010 (including EMF meters, auras, evidence for precognition, sensitisation, the ghost hunting boom)
- Oct 2010 (including black orbs, UnConvention, mirror visions, levitation, flying rods and orbs)
- Sep 2010 (including a ring tone from the roof, shadow ghost video, time slip explanation, daylight orb video)
- 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)
- 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 2013