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) 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)

30 Apr 2010: The causes of road ghosts

Road ghosts divide broadly into two types. There is the classic phantom hitchhiker that accepts a ride in someone's car and then vanishes. Then there is the ghost seen fleetingly from a moving vehicle at night which sometimes ends up being run over! The first is very rarely reported and, given its similarity to a folklore motif, is considered by some researchers to be an urban legend. The second kind of road ghost, where a figure is seen, usually only briefly, sometimes at the side of the road, sometimes in the middle, is more common and there are many reliable reports (see Blue Bell Hill). So what could be possible causes of the second type of road ghost, which seems to a real phenomenon?

As with any type of anomalous phenomenon, different cases may have different causes. One obvious theory is misperception. A common cause of misperception is a brief view of an object. When driving at night it is common, particularly when cornering, for the headlights to briefly illuminate objects beside the road, like trees and bushes, so they could easily cause misperception. On a sharp bend, a misperceived object might even appear to be IN the road. Patchy mist can also be caught briefly in headlights and can really be physically in the centre of road. This, too, might produce a misperception of something being run over.

Another possible cause of this second kind of road ghost could be microsleep. These are episodes of sleep a few seconds long which we rarely notice. They are most likely to occur when the witness is tired or receiving little sensory stimulation, like on a long drive at night. Sometimes people go into a REM state (associated with dreaming) in microsleep. So, for a few seconds they are dreaming while still feeling awake! Such a state could easily explain a brief hallucination, like a figure in the road. It would be interesting to examine the reported causes of car accidents at night to see if they contain anything like this - swerving to avoid an object which turns out to not exist, for instance.

Clearly, someone going into microsleep and dreaming briefly could explain many apparition sightings where the witness believes they were fully awake at the time. However, it should be said, that though microsleep is fairly common, going into a REM state in it is not (and could be a sign of a sleep disorder). But then seeing apparitions is pretty rare too! It would be worth asking ghost witnesses if they are sleeping well.

A factor that might increase the possible of microsleep with REM state is extreme tiredness and low sensory stimulation. Such as sitting around in a dark ghost vigil, perhaps ...

29 Apr 2010: Orbed out!

Orb zonesOK I admit it, I'm jealous! Steve Parsons of Parascience, a group which has had with close associations with ASSAP down the years, has got himself a digital stereo (or 3D) camera and has been using it to photograph orbs. He has a Fujifilm W1 3D, the first 3D digital camera in the world, only launched in the UK last autumn. The camera takes two photos simultaneously, with identical exposure seetings, from two lenses a little way apart. By combining the resulting images you can get a 3D picture of a scene.

Each lens in a stereo camera has its own orb zone. This is because the zones are very close to the camera lens (see diagram). In the figure (right), a piece of dust in orb zone A will only show up as an orb for the top lens. Similarly, a piece of dust in zone B will only appear as an orb for the bottom lens because the zones do not overlap. If orbs were really 'out there', rather than out of focus bits of dust very close to the lens, say at position C, they would appear as an object in both pictures of the stereo pair. Further, its correct position in space could be determined from the combined stereo photo.

You don't actually need a stereo camera to do this experiment. ASSAP proposed Project Orbit to do this test some years ago, using two cameras. In a darkened room you can have both cameras, side by side, with their shutters initially open when an electronic flash unit illuminates the scene. The shutters then close and you have a stereo pair of photos of the briefly illuminated scene. However, it was a complex and messy idea and the project never went ahead. Using a 3D camera is a much simpler and more elegant solution.

Steve reports that " To date 1,870 stereo pairs of images have been taken and examined. Orb anomalies have been found on 630 pairs. In 491 pairs, an orb or orbs was seen to be present only in the left or right image and not in the corresponding second image of the pair. In 139 stereo pairs, orbs were seen to be present in both of the images (left & right) but not in a position that corresponded to the individual orb being the same object."

This matches the expected result for orbs being out of focus bits of dust, insects, water droplets and so on caught in the camera flash. In other words, just as the Orb Zone Theory predicts.

As we have discovered, through amassing evidence in favour of the Orb Zone Theory, this will not be the end of the matter for some people. There will always be those who believe they have discovered a rare exception to the rule that orbs are out of focus bits of dust. This is how the orb FAQ web page came into being. Every time someone comes up with a new situation which appears to show that not all orbs are dust, we investigate it and show how, in reality, the Orb Zone Theory still applies.

27 Apr 2010; Mixed signals

Have you ever noticed how it is easier to understand what someone is saying if you can see their face? Try it and see! We all lip read, even if we are not conscious of it, which is why it is easier to hear what someone is saying if you can see their lips moving. It shows how our senses work together to reinforce each others perception of the world around us. Another well-known example is the close connection between smell and taste. I once did a the blind test with my nose blocked and could not tell if I was eating an apple or an onion by taste alone, without the smell. Even weirder, experiments have shown that diners in a blacked-out restaurant found all the courses tasted bland because they could not see them!

In some people the connection between the senses in even stronger. When people have synaesthesia they may see sounds as colours or have all sorts of other cross-sensory experiences! This condition may be responsible for reports of seeing auras.

Could the connection between the senses, even in those without synaesthesia, be responsible for some reports of paranormal experiences? Might they contribute to misperception? We know that when people cannot see something well they may misperceive, possibly reporting a tree as a human figure, for instance. So what happens if two senses, which normally contribute to our perception of the world, produce conflicting information? It is painfully obvious when lip-syncing is not working in a film, so it is clear we can detect such conflicts easily. So, could hearing a noise and then seeing a tree in the same direction in the distance make us more likely to perceive it as a human figure?

It would be worth asking witnesses to paranormal phenomena if they had any unexpected or out of place sensory stimulation, such as an unexpected noise or strange smell, when they had their experience. Odd smells are, of course, quite common in haunting cases. Could they be contributing to an apparent paranormal experience even when they have a normal explanation?

This is clearly an area worthy of research. It should be quite easy to set up experiments to test such sensory conflicts to see if they contribute to misperception.

26 Apr 2010: Not recognising faces

The BBC's excellent Eyewitness TV series (see here to view episodes - in the UK at least) last night examined more vital points about witness testimony. This episode concentrated on recognising faces. Though witnesses are often asked about the individual parts of a face, like eyes, chin, hair etc, we humans find these details difficult to remember. That's because we recognise people by their overall facial features, rather than parts of the face. If a familiar face is changed, even a little, using photo editing, it can become unrecognisable.

Such facts add to the mystery of how individual ghosts are identified. Though there are many 'identified' ghosts associated with well-known hauntings, how they were originally recognised remains a mystery. I have pursued this question for years without any satisfactory answer. There are cases where the mere fact that someone, well-known to the local community, once lived in a now haunted house seems to be enough to identify a ghost with that person. I'd like to think that there is a less tenuous process of identification in other cases but I've yet to come across it.

The programme explained how are memories are fragmentary, not like a video as we might imagine, and we unconsciously insert unseen details to 'fill in the gaps'. What they didn't mention was that this process happens not just in memory but in the original perception itself. If we cannot see something easily, our brains unconsciously 'fill in the details' so that we may see something that was never there in the first place (misperception).

Another interesting point raised concerned witnesses discussing their experiences before they are interviewed. This is a much bigger problem with paranormal research than in police crime investigation because the time interval from incident to interview is typically much longer. In addition, paranormal witnesses may discuss their experiences with people who hold strong beliefs on the subject whose interpretations may further alter memories.

Typically, where an incident was witnessed by several people, their individual accounts will vary widely. It is possible, by interviewing them individually, to build up quite an accurate picture of an incident by looking for similarities between accounts and so eliminating individual errors. But when witnesses talk about an incident among themselves, some of the individual errors may become part of a consensus account thereby contaminating everyone's testimony. The way to recognise this, during interviews, is to look for apparently identical accounts, particularly if the same words are used to describe something.

Witness testimony is our most important access to paranormal reports and so interviewing witnesses correctly is vital. All of this is covered in ASSAP investigator training course. Though many paranormal researchers concentrate on ghost vigils these days, rather than talking to witnesses, interviewing can still be usefully applied there. Even in a vigil, many reported incidents are not recorded by instruments meaning that we are, once again, relying solely on witness testimony.

Another point the TV programme made was that if a witness is afraid, it can partially or totally wipe their memory of the incident! That would mean that there would be more 'gaps' in their memory to fill in with things that were not actually witnessed! While this has obvious implications for those witnessing crimes, it may also affect anomaly research. Some people, if they believe they are watching a ghost, monster or UFO might well feel afraid (probably because of the media portrayal of such subjects!). It is worth asking witnesses if they felt afraid. If they did, their account might be less accurate than one from someone who was unafraid.

For more on eyewitnesses in paranormal research, see here.

23 Apr 2010: A Field Guide to Xenonormal UFOs

Flying geeseIn the latest issue of Fortean Times (May 2010) there are two examples of xenonormal UFOs. Andy Roberts reports seeing a 'silver sphere traveling about 100m above the river (Dee)'. When it changed direction it was revealed to be a helicopter, the sun reflecting off its glass cockpit to create the sphere. Meanwhile, Alan Friswell saw a flock of Canada Geese that looked like a formation of 'incandescent balls of light speeding towards the horizon'. Luckily, he had seen them when they were much closer and still clearly identifiable. The effect happened because the birds' white fronts were illuminated from below by the rising sun.

It is rare for an observer of a UFO to be able to identify the true nature of the object at the time so they usually end up being reported as mysteries. Sometimes it is possible to identify what caused the observation after the event, but not always. Simply because an observation is unexplained, it does not automatically mean that it has an extraterrestrial explanation though that is the implication many people take.

Here at ASSAP, we have been gathering photos of xenonormal UFOs for years, knowing at the time of exposure that they have a natural explanation. When a suitable object appears in the sky it is photographed. Then another zoom photo is taken which reveals what the object really is. If only all UFO observers had binoculars, the vast majority of sightings could be explained straight away and would never even be reported. You can see the gallery of our xenonormal UFOs here.

There is one example in the UFO gallery which works the opposite way round to the others. It is the telephoto image that looks strange while the normal view shows what it really is - namely soap bubbles. That particular photo was described earlier this month here.

Highly illuminated birds are thought by some to explain the Lubbock Lights case of 1951 in Texas. A more recent case of a mysterious light is the Paulding Light in Michigan. There is a video of it here and a possible explanation here. In the same vein, here is a link to some aircraft that could easily be reported as UFOs.

The ASSAP approach, of deliberately seeking out identified objects and showing how they could appear as UFOs, could make life a lot easier for UFO investigators who usually only have a witness statement to go on. It should be possible one day, through our work, to produce a Field Guide to Xenonormal UFOs. As well as classifying all the shapes and types of UFO reported, it would show their possible xenonormal explanation with real life photographic examples, like in the gallery. Perhaps the most important thing such a guide could say is that, in order to judge the height and speed of a UFO, you need to know its size (which is unknown if you don't know what it is!). Misjudging the height, speed and size of a UFO is a common reason why some are thought to be extraterrestrial in origin. Many UFOs, like low flying birds, are much closer, smaller and slower than the witness imagines.

PS: The geese in the photo above are Greylag, not Canada Geese. The latter have a pure white underside making them more easily visible when flying.

21 Apr 2010: Unreliable testimony

SteamThe BBC research mentioned in the last entry (below) was featured in the TV programme Eyewitness (part 2 is at 23.00 on BBC2 on 25 April while part 1 currently available on BBC iPlayer in the UK). It showed how fallible the memory of eyewitnesses is through various tests. It included a staged incident, that the participants were not warned about, similar to the exercises ASSAP did on its training days way back in the 1990s (though we didn't stage a crime!). It also featured free response interviewing techniques, like those that have been featured on ASSAP training courses ever since the 1980s! So it's hardly new stuff, not to ASSAP members anyway, but will still no doubt come as news to much of the general public.

In the TV programme, the police (who only had witness statements to go on) managed to put together a reasonable account of the staged incident by combining interviews from 10 witnesses. However, the statements from individual witnesses varied considerably, just as ASSAP has found in our own research. The problem is caused by the fact that our brains tell us that what we see and remember is true, even if it doesn't always equate to reality. Seeing really is believing, which can be a problem when perception or memory are wrong!

In paranormal research, we are , in many ways, in an even worse position than the police trying to solve a crime. Firstly, there is rarely ever any forensic evidence, or physical traces, left from a ghost or UFO sighting. Indeed we usually only have the testimony of the witness to say that anything has happened at all. At least the police have evidence that a crime has actually occurred! Secondly, paranormal cases frequently involve single witnesses, often in poor viewing conditions (such as at night). Even when there are multiple witnesses, the differences between their testimonies can vary much more even than in a staged incident. For instance, some people in a group may see a ghost while others don't, even when it is pointed out! Thirdly, witnesses to paranormal incidents are frequently not interviewed by investigators for many days, weeks or even years after the incident. In the meantime they may discuss it with friends, family or even the media! All of this can change their memory of the incident considerably.

The TV programme concentrated on the effect of memory on witness testimony. It only mentioned briefly the fact that the initial perception of an incident can be wrong to start with! Misperception can be just as important as memory, if not more so, in eyewitness testimony. One thing the police did not do, that paranormal investigators might do, is to stand where the eyewitnesses did and see if there was anything there that might have misperceived - see here for such reconstruction methods. Maybe, in a few years, the police will do that as well! It seems ASSAP is truly on the leading edge with these sort of investigation methods. Given how important witness testimony is in our field, it is perhaps not so surprising.

PS: The photo is nothing to do with witness testimony. It was taken recently and shows curious bright ines coming out of a metal object. They could be taken for flying rods. They are, however, streams of water droplets coming out of a steam engine. It is unusual to see a stream of water droplets like these in a photo which is probably explained by the relatively long exposure time of 1 / 25s and the fact that steam engines are relatively rare these days.

16 Apr 2010: Never underestimate nature!

Volcanic ash from Iceland has grounded most airlines in northern Europe. It has also been seen on the ground, in tiny quantities, in Shetland. It reminded me of when I was a kid, seeing red dust brought by freak winds from the Sahara. Meanwhile a very bright meteor has been filmed in Wisconsin lighting up the sky to daylight levels. I saw a bright meteor myself, once. It was brighter than the moon and it split in two as it fell. Nature has a way of intruding into our lives sometimes whether we expect it or not.

The population of our planet can now be fairly described as primarily urban. Living in cities tends to isolate us from many natural phenomena that our ancestors would have been familiar with. One result of this increasing isolation from the natural world is a greater likelihood of xenonormal experiences. Nature is, literally, becoming 'foreign' to many of us.

Ironically, as discussed here in recent days, it is probably those who notice their surroundings more than most who may be most likely to report such experiences. As well as seeing more in their surroundings, such people well may well notice unusual events, particularly coincidences. Though coincidences are just events that happen at the same time for no particular reason, they can sometimes appear meaningful or paranormal. It is just nature playing jokes on us!

As a modern urban human, it is now 'normal' to be narrowly focused on your life, your immediate surroundings and concerns. Those who notice a bit more about what is going on around them may experience the xenonormal. But to be fully aware of both what is going on around us AND to recognise it as natural, nowadays is a now rare gift.

PS: One of the biggest problems we humans have as eye witnesses is that our brains always tell us what we are seeing is true. Worse, they tell us our memories are true afterwards. As we in ASSAP know, eye witness accounts and memory are both unreliable. Try telling a witness that we have good evidence that what they saw was different to what they reported and you are likely to get short shrift! Realising that our senses and memory are fallible is difficult but it can end up improving them. You start to recognise situations like having a misperception and so can separate out the reliable from the unreliable memories. So, it is nice to see some new research in the field, reported here.

14 Apr 2010: Noticing things

I had the dubious privilege of being awake at night recently in a non-haunted location. In the dark and silence, you hear odd things. Clicks are one of the most common. I think these are caused by various objects contracting as the heat of the day gives way to the cold of night time. There are also other sounds, more difficult to locate or explain, which probably happen throughout the day but are not noticed because of the greater ambient noise in daylight. I have heard exactly the same sounds on ghost vigils in haunted locations. In a haunted location such natural sounds are more likely to be interpreted as paranormal.

It made me wonder, following my last blog entry, whether people who have a heightened awareness of their environment, compared to most people, are more likely to report a place as haunted. Indeed, this is just how the New House Effect might work . And what about people who think they are psychics? They, too, may be more 'vigilant' than most people, noticing more things not only about their environment but also about people (see Am I Psychic).

Then there are shadow ghosts. These are usually seen in peripheral vision. Most people don't take much notice of things in their peripheral vision. It is easy to misinterpret objects in peripheral vision as we see them poorly and in monochrome. But if you concentrate on your peripheral vision it is easy to see 'odd' things that look normal in central vision.

So, this may be a specific personal characteristic to look for in paranormal witnesses and psychics - unusually high vigilance. Unfortunately, higher vigilance does not necessarily equate to accurate observation. In misperception, the cause of many paranormal reports, the opposite is true.

As I've noted before, you often see what you want to see or fear to see with misperception (as well as what you expect to see). That could explain why ghosts are a common subject as they manage to combine both. Many people are curious to see a ghost but, on the other hand, they are also a little scared of them!

This is an area ripe for research. The research question being, is there anything that tends to differentiate paranormal witnesses from the bulk of the population? If so, do they have a heightened awareness of their surroundings compared to most people?

9 Apr 2010: Not quite seeing is believing

Recently, I noticed someone walking along the street, clearly unaware I was observing. I was watching because I knew there was a Sparrow in a bush that would fly off as soon as the person approached (it was actually the bird I was watching originally, not the person). I wanted to see the reaction when the bird flew, as I anticipated, just as the person approached the bush to within a couple of metres. There was no reaction whatever! I should not have been surprised. Most of us walk along the street, deep in contemplation of our own affairs, hardly noticing what is going on around us.

In last week's New Scientist (2 April) it was reported that research indicated more brain activity when something unexpected happened, compared to events occur more predictably. It is well known that our brains predict what will happen on the basis of what has happened before and that this affects what we actually experience (irrespective of reality!). If someone throws a ball up in the air several times and catches it, but then only appears to throw it again while actually holding onto it firmly, we will nevertheless look up to where the ball 'ought' to be. Some people might even 'see' the ball in the air! When something unpredictable happens our brains have to work harder to reject what is predicted and correct their interpretation of events to more closely match reality.

The person failing to see the fleeing bird clearly did not update their view on reality. If questioned, I suspect they would not remember seeing the bird at all. They weren't expecting to see a bird so they failed to notice it. Obviously, the reaction to unexpected events will vary from person to person and from time to time. Someone actively looking at their surroundings would undoubtedly have noticed the bird flying off.

Another person might have noticed 'something' moving but not recognised it as a bird and maybe interpreted it as something quite different, even paranormal. Their brain would have been unusually active but only partially updated their view to reality. They would have noticed that something had moved, which was real, but not recognised what it was - a xenonormal experience, in fact.

So the xenonormal experience could be seen as part-way between missing an event altogether and recognising it for what it really is. Unable to recognise the object as a bird, our brains may misperceive it as something else from memory. And that thing from memory could be fictional, from a TV programme or film, for instance. Instead of a bird flying off, it could be reported as a fairy!

It is possible that those prone to xenonormal experiences may be more aware of their surroundings than most people but less familiar than others with what to expect there. They may even expect to see ghosts and UFOs because they have a strong interest in them.

6 Apr 2010: South coast UFO

South coast UFOIt was not a great Easter weekend weather-wise but the English south coast nevertheless produced an interesting UFO photo (right). The photo shows a roof, with a chimney and tiles. Between them is a curious object, in the sky. It is slightly darker than the sky, looking transparent and elliptical. But the most interesting bits are the two bright circular objects at each end of the main object, giving an impression of lights. Even as UFOs go, it is rather unusual.

So what is it? The bright 'headlights' resemble orbs which means they are most likely out of focus highlights. The transparent 'body' of the object is more difficult to recognise purely from the photo.

Luckily, the object was spotted and identified at the time of exposure. It is a floating soap bubble! It is much closer to the camera than the roof, which was photographed with a telephoto lens. The bubble is out of focus and catching the sunlight. The two 'headlights' are indeed out of focus highlights caused by the bright sunlight.

Had the photographer not noticed the soap bubble at the time of exposure, the UFO would have looked very odd and otherworldly indeed, when viewed later. It is rare to get a photo with soap bubbles floating through it so the object would have been be difficult to identify, or even guess at, after the event. The fact that the bubble is out of focus does not help. Nor do the bright highlights at either end of the bubble which look headlights when out of focus.

South coat bubbleIt is always useful to have other photos of the same scene taken at the same time. There is just such a photo here (right). It shows another soap bubble from the same group but this time it is in focus. You can now see clearly the two highlights at each end, caused by the bright sun. It is also easy to see where the transparent 'body' of the UFO came from. In addition, against a background of trees, the soap bubble looks small, as we would expect. In the photo above, the UFO looks big because it appears to be in the sky behind the roof line. Since we know the roof of a building is big, we tend to see anything apparently behind it as large too. It shows how context can contribute to how we view objects in photos. The bubble in the top photo is also notably larger than the one below because it is magnified by the telephoto lens.

UFOs are, mostly, seen in the sky. It is therefore difficult to judge their true size, as in the example here. In many cases, we think we see a large distant object when, in fact, it is small and close. Because of this, such UFOs are often reported to fly at unfeasibly great speeds. If the true size and distance of the object was known, the speed might not be unusual at all.

1 Apr 2010: The ghost in the machine

Misperceived ghostI often wonder why people report certain experiences as paranormal. The obvious answer is that they have witnessed something unexpected which is, at first sight, inexplicable. But, as regular readers will know, I often see ghosts, have the odd OOBE and even a near sleep experience without ever considering them paranormal.

One difference between me and many casual witnesses of strange events is that I always investigate incidents at the time they occur. Most people do not. Also, I have lots of experience of investigating strange reports which most people do not. But there is more to it than that.

There are certain 'well-known facts' about the paranormal that act as triggers to tell witnesses they may have just experienced it. For instance, if you see a human figure that subsequently vanishes, that is a pretty good indication you've seen a ghost! Except, of course, that misperceptions (like the photo above - see here for story) do the same thing! If you see something odd in a photo you've taken, that wasn't there at the time of the exposure, then it must be paranormal! Except, it could be a photographic artifact, like an orb or flying rod. Similarly, something heard on a sound recording that was not apparent when it was made is often interpreted as EVP when, in fact, it might be formant noise.

Many of these 'well-known facts' about the paranormal do not stand up to scrutiny. It is likely that they were derived largely from fiction, legend and culture, rather than real paranormal cases. They are maintained by some paranormal researchers through assumption-led methods of investigation.

I do not mind that people report strange experiences which have simple, natural explanations. It helps us all to extend our knowledge of the xenonormal, which is vital if we are to differentiate it from the true paranormal. But I am still fascinated by precisely why people report some strange experiences as paranormal but not others. I think it is largely down to whether it looks like something paranormal they've seen in the media but it would be worthy of proper research.

PS: No April fool jokes here! In our field, it's difficult enough already to decide what is real and what isn't!

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

Last month's (March) website figures are an average of 9685 hits per day. Slightly up on the previous month's 9637, it is down (by just 2%) on the same month in the previous year.

ASSAP

Previous blog pages ...

  • 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