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)
NB: WDTHDWP = 'what does this have to do with the paranormal'
30 April: UFO behind trees
OK, this is what I see. You may see something different. Around the middle of the photo there is clearly an object behind the bare branches of a tree. But what is it? To me it is a 'classic' flying saucer. It's slightly ironic as UFOs seem to come in many shapes these days and the ' flying saucer' variety is no longer common.
This flying saucer, for those who see it, is clearly a misperception. Like all misperceptions, it is caused by not seeing an object clearly. In this case it's the intervening tree and small size of the object causing the problem.
OK, so here's the weird bit. In misperception, our brains substitute a poorly-seen object with something from our visual memory. But I've never seen a flying saucer! Even with my poor memory, I'd definitely remember something as amazing as that. So the object in my visual memory, being used here, can only have come from representations I've seen in movies, TV programmes, books or wherever. Most of these never claimed to be anything other than purely fictional. Now I have always assumed that images from sources not seen in real life by the witness can be used in visual substitutions. I assumed this because it made sense of many case reports. However, I now have definitive personal evidence that it really happens.
The object here is actually a large bird, gliding. Without the trees in the way it would be more obvious. I see a distinct dome on the top of the object, which you may not. It will depend a lot on your visual display. That dome shape is actually caused by the way the branches bend! The 'dome' is no longer present in another photo, taken just after this one, where the bird is lower down in the sky. Such domes are, of course, typical of flying saucers from movies. It confirms to me that you can misperceive something even if you've never seen it in real life before, only in the movies.
27 April: Orbs that really ARE behind other objects!
Spot the difference! These two photos, of the same scene, were taken around 0.2s apart. The camera has, nevertheless, moved slightly in that period, as you can see by comparing the tree branches. But look at the orbs. Some of them appear to be partially obscured by the branches.
I have stated elsewhere that orbs that appear to be behind other objects in a photo are not (see here). That's because the objects producing the orbs, such as dust particles or insects, are very close to the camera. And it's true for the vast majority of photos where orbs appear to be behind objects. They look as though they are behind because they blend into the background.
But here is a highly unusual case that is an exception to the rule. These orbs really ARE behind the branches. Where they appear to be partially obscured it's because they really are behind the branches. How is that possible?
In the orb zone theory (see here) orbs are out of focus highlights of objects very close to the camera. They show up because they are strongly illuminated, usually by a flash. But the bit about being close to the camera is not crucial, just the usual arrangement. You could have an orb zone remote from the camera. So long as it contains out of focus highlights and strong illumination, it will work. And that is what is going on here.
The branches in the photo are in the foreground and in focus. However, the background is out of focus and illuminated by strong sunlight. It is a river. The orbs are out of focus highlights in a stationary mat of algae sitting on the surface of the river.
If you look closely you'll see that all the orbs move slightly between the two frames. The move slightly to the left. The highlights causing the orbs are not really moving. It is the slightly different angle of the photo that produces the apparent motion. Actually, there is one exception. The orb in the top left corner appears to move vertically as well as horizontally. This is probably due to a localized movement in the algal mat.
So, there is a rare case where the orb zone is distant from the camera. Why don't we see more examples like this? It's because of the large depth of field in most digital cameras that keeps distant objects in focus. This particular photo was taken with a telephoto which has a smaller depth of field than other lenses. Note how a detailed knowledge of the circumstances of taking this photo was necessary to explain it.
24 April: Ghost leg
"All I saw was a leg. It was black. It moved away from me with a sort of dragging motion." This is a real, if brief, description of a ghost sighting. If I'd read it in a book I would have pictured the scene in my imagination. I would have seen a disembodied leg, probably of a shadow ghost, still somehow managing to walk. But the experience wasn't from a ghost book. It happened to me. Recently.
There is an expression in computing, WYSIWYG, which means 'what you see is what you get'. I think there should be a similar expression in anomaly research. It would be WYIMNBWTS, meaning 'what you imagine may not be what they saw'. It's a horrible acronym (initialism?) but I think it may turn out to be useful.
I remember, on an investigation of a well-known haunted building, I was told what phenomena to expect in certain locations. And I duly experienced some of the very phenomena described in those exact places. However, two unexpected things struck me. Firstly, though what I experienced fitted the descriptions I'd been given exactly, it was not what I'd imagined on first hearing them. Secondly, I could see fairly obvious natural explanations for the phenomena which were clearly not paranormal. However, if the phenomena HAD been as I'd imagined them, they would have been a lot harder to explain and probably paranormal.
This is where WYIMNBWTS comes in. I think that, in many cases, when we hear a witness's account of a strange experience we have a vision of the experience in our minds that often looks inexplicable. But it may not be what actually happened. I can illustrate this with the 'ghost leg' experience described above.
It was the latest appearance of my regular door ghost (see here). As in recent experiences, it was a bright sunny day and I saw just the dark appendage of a ghost. However, instead of feet walking away from me (see here), I saw a whole leg this time, as described above. But it was not a disembodied leg, as someone reading the description might imagine. Instead, I could not see any more of the 'figure' than the leg because my view was blocked by my own body. The ghost was behind me and I had only a highly restricted view, reflected in glass. So the sighting COULD potentially have been caused by an entire human figure, whether a ghost or an ordinary person. Obviously, a truly disembodied leg would be difficult to explain but one partially obscured by an object much less so.
It can be difficult to escape from that first vision you get of a scene described to you. That's why it's vital, as an anomaly investigator, to visit the site of an experience to correct any wrong ideas you have about it. I've certainly been surprised many times by how different places look to the way I'd imagined when I only had someone else's description of them. It is also important to stand exactly where the original witness stood, doing whatever it was they did at the time. Often, in such circumstances, new likely explanations for a reported experience become obvious, particularly misperception.
It's not catchy. It's impossible to pronounce. But it is still an important concept for anomaly investigators to consider - WYIMNBWTS - 'what you imagine may not be what they saw'.
23 April: Seeing the famous - the rate remains constant!
Regular readers may recall that I appear to see famous people with remarkable regularity for someone with no contact whatsoever with the rich and famous. Indeed, I worked out that I see, on average, about 0.23 celebrities per month (see here). However, since I did that calculation, I have not seen anyone famous. I have become worried that the average may be declining!
Then, the other day, all was well again. I saw a famous politician. Of course, there is an election going on in the UK right now so seeing famous politicians is not as unusual as it might normally be. Nevertheless, I had still had to be in the right place at the right time. I wasn't seeking out political discourse and I was only there at the right time because I was running very late. I certainly had no idea in advance where the politician was gong to be. Oddly, there was no public transport involved this time.
Interestingly, this latest sighting brings the average to 0.22. Without this latest sighting the average would gave dropped to 0.18! If the average continues at around 0.22 or 0.23 into the future I will really begin to think something paranormal may be going on. I can think of no obvious natural reason why such a rate should remain constant. I suppose there must be a natural background rate for seeing celebrities by chance but I suspect it is lower than 0.23. If anyone has any data on this, or can calculate their own rate, I'd love to hear from them. In the meantime, I'm expecting my next celebrity in around 4 months!
21 April: Photos of ghosts actually seen by witnesses
Why isn't photography more helpful when it comes to ghost research? I wondered about this recently when I looked at the photo here (right). When I took the photo, it was of a Buzzard. But when I looked at the photo it became obvious that the bird (the one on the right being pursued by a Crow) was actually a Red Kite. It was ironic because, typically, when birders misperceive species they tend to 'see' rarer species than the ones actually present. At the site where I took the photo, Buzzards are far commoner than Red Kites.
So, why did I 'see' a Buzzard? My first excuse is that the bird was distant and I had no binoculars, whereas the camera had a telephoto lens. My second excuse is jizz. Birders use jizz to identify birds they cannot see that well. Jizz combines an overall impression of appearance, behaviour, voice, habitat, location and so on. The bird certainly resembled a Buzzard in shape and behaviour. And I see that species regularly at the location concerned. The appearance and behaviour bits rely on experience of the species concerned. The location and habitat bits bring expectation into the equation. I expected to see a Buzzard. It looked and behaved like one, so that's what I saw.
So what has this to do with ghost research? I wondered why, if taking a photo can reveal that I had misperceived a Buzzard as a Red Kite, why can't it reveal what people see when they perceive a ghost? These days a lot of people walk around with a camera all the time, in the shape of a mobile phone. There are many apparent ghost photos around but the vast majority are anomalies in the photo that were NOT SEEN by the photographer at the time of exposure. And, in most cases, the pictures turn out to be photographic artefacts (see here) , which is why they were not seen at the time of exposure. The numbers of these photos does, indeed, appear to have increased hugely with the proliferation of mobile phones and digital cameras, as you might expect.
But there seems to have been no obvious increase in the numbers of photos of ghosts that were actually seen at the time of exposure. The numbers of such photos remains vanishingly small. So what's going on? I think it is largely because most people don't realise they are seeing a ghost until after they've seen it, which is why their phones and cameras remain unused. And that, in turn, is because most ghosts look like perfectly ordinary people, until they do something impossible, like vanishing. It's like the jizz thing. Witnesses see ordinary people because they look and behave normally and hang around places you expect to see people. And, also like jizz, it has a lot to do with expectation. I don't think we'll start to see many photos of ghosts actually seen by witnesses until life logging equipment becomes popular (see here). It will be fascinating to see what witnesses actually saw.
17 April: A road ghost explanation to consider
There is a common type of road ghost sighting that goes like this. Someone is driving, often at night alone, when there is suddenly a human figure just in front of them in the road. Unable to stop in time, the horrified witness runs over the figure. Getting out of their vehicle they search for the 'body' but find no one or any sign that anyone, or anything, was ever there.
I was reminded of this scenario recently when I was looking for reports of MWR - microsleep with REM (see here). These experiences occur to a tiny proportion of the population. Those affected fall briefly asleep, for a few seconds, and instantly start dreaming, which could account for certain apparent paranormal reports. Some of the reports I found, from people with sleep disorders, were strikingly similar to the road ghost scenario outlined above. A witness would be driving along when an unexpected object would suddenly appear in the road ahead. The object was not real and the expected unavoidable collision did not occur.
It's one of those things that appears obvious, in hindsight. MWRs fit the 'running over a ghost' scenario perfectly. Indeed, driving is a typical scenario that leads to microsleep episodes. This isn't to say that ALL such experiences are likely to be caused by MWRs. Rather, it is a highly plausible explanation to be explored whenever such a case is reported.
Of course, there are cases where MWR is not such an obviously plausible explanation. For instance, cases involving multiple witnesses are highly unlikely to be caused by MWR. There is also the fact that road ghosts incidents sometimes cluster around a particular stretch of road. Multiple witnessed events or being tied to a specific location does not, of course, rule out misperception as a likely cause, as with other types of ghost.
PS: This blog is concerned with the scientific investigation of anomalous phenomena. As such, I usually ignore ethical issues. However, I ought to point out an ethical problem if an investigator believes a road ghost incident was most likely caused by MWR. The problem is that, as I understand it, the authorities, in the UK at least, do not usually allow people with certain untreated sleep disorders, to drive.
14 April: Want to see a ghost? Forget it ...
Twice recently I have repeated my latest observation of the door ghost (the door what?). This is the one where I see the ghost retreating rapidly away from me with improbably small feet (see here for first observation). I noticed that each of these sightings had something specific in common - there was bright sunshine illuminating the whole area strongly. This suggests that the effect may depend on high contrast illumination, which may be why I've not noticed it before. The time of year may be important here, as well, perhaps related to a specific angle of the sun to the door.
This underlines, once again, how acutely sensitive misperception is to illumination. If you want to see a misperceived ghost that a witness saw, you need to be in the same place with the right illumination. That last bit can be difficult to arrange.
Regular readers may wonder at the seemingly haphazard way in which I am slowly investigating the door ghost. It's because of another big problem, apart from correct illumination, that hampers misperception research. It is this. If you've seen a misperception once it usually disappears, never to be seen again. That's because, once your brain knows what the object that you misperceived really is, it only ever sees it that way in future. Except, if you forget, at least temporarily, your previous observations. Then you can misperceive the same object all over again because your brain no longer remembers what it really is.
I have, as regular readers will know, a shocking memory. This is a disadvantage in just about every life situation imaginable. But this is one of those rare occasions when it is actually useful. But even with my poor memory, It means I see the door ghost repeatedly, every time I forget about it.
But even with a poor memory, it is very difficult to do experiments. Suppose I plan a particular experiment for when I next see the door ghost. I can't make a note of it as this will stop me seeing the ghost. So I forget it and the ghost eventually reappears. But then I have to remember what my test was before the ghost disappears, which usually happens within a few seconds. And having a poor memory, recalling the experiment is a tricky task!
So despite having a 'tame' ghost, it is still largely a question of amassing spontaneous observations over time. I think it might be possible to do some kind of truly experimental setup with wearable technology but that is very much a blue sky idea at present.
8 April: Seeing what you expect!
Passing through a bookshop the other day, a title caught my eye as it was about birding, a hobby of mine. Except that, on tuning to look at the book properly, it wasn't about birding at all. The relevant word in the title had six letters in common with 'birding', so my mistake was understandable. But I actually SAW it as 'birding', not something like it. It was, thus, a misperception. Regular readers will be aware that I started to notice my own misperceptions a few years back and have seen several ghosts as a result since. We all misperceive all the time, to some extent, but only notice it rarely.
So what, you may ask? Well, it made me think. I misperceive poorly-seen signs, newspaper headlines, book titles, posters and the like fairly frequently. But what is interesting is that the words I see are very frequently related to my own interests, particularly the paranormal. This is interesting because it suggests a definite bias in what I misperceive words to be, towards my particular interests. Misperceptions are definitely heavily influenced by the shape of the object, or word, being misperceived. I have also noted that they are often what you fear, or most want, to see. I hadn't realised, until now, that they may be influenced by other things too. Of course, words are not objects. It doesn't necessarily follow that I will misperceive objects as something paranormal simply because I do so for words. But it could well do. Maybe where I see ghosts, others see different things.
Even if the bias only applies to words, its effects might still be apparent in paranormal research. Take EVP, for instance. Formant noise, which is a xenonormal cause for some EVP recordings, is effectively a specialised form of misperception. It might mean that the meaning people place on apparent words caused by formant noise might be biassed. So someone who believes EVP are spirit messages may interpret the sounds that way while another person might not.
1 April: The ghost in the white hat
I sat in a train recently, gazing idly out of the window waiting for departure. I noticed someone walking along a path near the station. There was nothing surprising about this and I paid the person little attention. I did note, however, that the person must be short as all I could see was their white hat protruding over a line of bushes in front. But then something extraordinary happened - the white-hatted individual vanished! One second plainly visible, the next completely gone!
I wondered if the person had gone behind a particularly tall bush but there were none nearby. Perhaps they had ducked down out of sight, for some bizarre reason. Either way, I did not see the white hat again.
Then, suddenly, the slight puzzle became a much bigger mystery. I realised that the place where I'd seen the white hat, which I knew well, was not where the path went at all. The path goes in front of the bushes, not behind. And behind the bushes is a tall fence, with no gap between. There is certainly no room for anyone to stroll along as I had observed the white hatted person do. For a minute or two I was completely baffled. A ghost actually seemed one of the more likely explanations!
Then another figure appeared in the same position. I could barely make out this individual, seeing only their lightest bits. Then I realised what was going on. I was seeing a dim reflection in the window I was looking out of. Due to the overcast lighting conditions, I could only see the lightest parts of people behind me on the station platform. I could see nothing else reflected in the window at all, which is why the idea of a reflection had not occurred to me before. I looked out at the platform but could see no one in a white hat though it is entirely possible that they had walked away in the time that had elapsed since I saw the ghost.
I usually recognize reflections easily. But, in this case, it was not at all obvious. I knew there was a path nearby so it did not occur to me there was anything odd about seeing someone walking along it. If they hadn't vanished I wouldn't have paid the incident any attention. It is an example of a nice coincidence giving rise to an apparent ghost sighting. Someone having seen the figure vanish who never worked out it was a reflection might still think it a ghost!
Last month's (March) website figures are an average of 16385 hits per day. This is very similar to the previous month's 16838 daily average.
© Maurice Townsend 2015
Previous blog pages ...
- Mar 2015 (including moving object looking motionless, retreating ghost, IFO turning into a UFO)
- Feb 2015 (including best ghost yet, how things vanish, purple thing, ghost in inappropriate attire)
- Jan 2015 (including winter insect orbs, ghost from a train, strangeness threshold, flashes in the sky)
- Dec 2014 (including lumpy horizon, green blob, strange lights, orbs, white floating thing)
- Nov 2014 (including doors opening by themselves, haunting flashes, sense of presence, formant noise)
- Oct 2014 (including animal ghosts, tricorn-hatted figure, seeing 0.23 celebrities monthly, dancing ghost)
- Sep 2014 (including paper defying gravity, low flying UFOs, photographing ghosts, moving still photos)
- Aug 2014 (including figure on a pillar, orbs still worth studying, ghost objects, shadow ghost)
- July 2014 (including yellow orb, teleportation, ghostly whispers, owl, strange announcement)
- June 2014 (including hand in a tree, blurry flying object, white alien, strange pattern on a dragonfly)
- May 2014 (including single witness UFOs, ghosts vanishing, anomalies seen through gaps, rock face, creeping doppelgangers)
- Apr 2014 (including unrecognized ghosts, odd UFO photo, do short-sighted people see ghosts, man with no face)
- Mar 2014 (including unusual shaped UFO, ghost on a train, ghost presence, vampires, ghost calling)
- Feb 2014 (including confusion, daylight orbs, haunted milk bottle, ghost on a bridge, too obvious explantations)
- Jan 2014 (including colliding orbs, ball lightning, de-orbing, ghost mouse, mysterious flashes, ghost misidentification)
- Dec 2013 (including popping orbs, new shadow ghost, ignoring a ghostly hand, dust turning into orbs videoed)
- Nov 2013 (including hearing voices, blurry ghosts, mirrors and ghosts, coincidences, UFOs near airports)
- Oct 2013 (including fairy photo, mist ghost, yeti, premonitions, orbs are NOT dust, how hauntings start)
- Sep 2013 (including moving sticks, targets affecting odds in psi tests, shape shifting, not photographing ghosts)
- 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