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.
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!
29 August: What do you do if you see an unknown animal?
When I looked up, for a few seconds I was confused. I literally had no idea what I was seeing. It was certainly a bird and, by its ponderous flight, presumably a big one. But what species? Luckily, as we were out birding, I had binoculars and a bird field guide handy. After a few anxious seconds of alternately looking through the binoculars and leafing through the guide we had it - a Black Stork! This species is very rarely seen in the UK, being just an occasional visitor. It was rare enough for me to report the sighting to the county bird recorder.
I was reminded of this event by the recent reports of a big cat in Essex. I wondered what I would do if I saw an unknown species before realizing that, in fact, I had already done so - the stork. I had never seen a Black Stork before, not even in a zoo, far less in the wild. So it was completely unknown as far as I was concerned. That would explain my moment of confusion when I had no idea what I was looking at, beyond the obvious fact that it was a bird. However, I was able to determine what it was quite quickly. I had several advantages compared to many finders of unknown animals. I was an experienced birder, I had binoculars, a field guide and other experienced birders nearby to consult. Most people who come across rare or unknown animals have none of these things.
So what would I do if I'm ever in that situation again? Firstly, if I have a camera I will try to take video or photos. I prioritize such recordings because, unlike witness statements, they can be examined at leisure for additional detail. Then I would look carefully at the animal, ideally using binoculars, and make notes of what I see. After describing the basic shape, comparing it to a known species (eg. like a Jay but with the following differences ...) I would note the pattern of colours and describe any noise the animal makes. I would then try to assess its size. This is usually the most difficult thing to do so it makes sense to leave it until last and devote any time remaining before the animal goes away to it.
Size is generally crucial in determining what a species is. The obvious way of measuring it is to compare the animal with the size of any object it is interacting with, like a bush or tree. Note that I said 'interacting', not simply close to. Objects can appear close to one another simply because they are in the same line of sight when they might be some distance apart. If the animal is not interacting with anything, I would try to reach the spot where it was seen, if possible, and place an object of known size there. Then I would return to where I made my original sighting. This will allow me to get some idea of scale. While at the spot where the animal was observed, I would look for any possible tracks which could help identify the species. If the animal is only seen flying it can be difficult to estimate its size. The best guide is that larger species (like the Purple Heron in the picture, right) tend to flap more slowly and deeply compared to smaller ones.
This might all seem obvious but the problem is, when you DO see an unusual animal, the chances are that it will catch you by surprise and it won't be visible for long. And if, like me, your initial reaction on seeing something unknown is momentary confusion, not unusual when having a xenonormal experience, it will lose you valuable viewing time. Being a witness to anomalous phenomena is not easy!
28 August: EMF meters and ghosts - an accident of history?
Suppose someone showed you a graph of the output, over time, from a photometer (which measures light intensity) that they had captured while witnessing an apparition. The graph clearly showed light levels rising suddenly, as the alleged ghost appeared, and then dropping as it disappeared. Would you regard that as compelling evidence that they'd really seen a ghost?
I suspect many people would remain unconvinced. While the graph clearly showed that there had been a temporary increase in light levels, there could be any number of natural causes to account for such an event. All a photometer does is measure overall light levels. It can give few, if any, clues to the nature of the phenomenon responsible for that light.
Now suppose the same person said they also had an EMF meter running at the time and it showed a 'spike' while the ghost was visible. I suspect many people would consider the EMF 'spike' to be much better evidence of a ghostly presence. But why?
Take the graph, above, for instance. It shows frequency (bottom axis) against magnetic flux density ('field strength') over a short sample period, made using a magnetometer. The instrument was near to a washing machine during its spin cycle. The huge frequency peak at 50 Hz is caused by the mains supply to the appliance (standard frequency in Europe). The big peak down near 1 to 3 Hz region is caused by the rotation of the washing machine drum. I'm not sure what is causing the small peak at 45 Hz but it is certainly related to the operation of the machine because it stops when the machine is off. Maybe it's a water pump. It would be easy to test that idea by simply listening for the pump and noting when the 45 Hz peak appears. If you put an EMF meter in the same physical position, near the washing machine, you see a steady high reading (with slight wobbling) during a spin cycle. Without frequency information, EMF meters cannot even identify whether there are single or multiple sources of a field, far less offer any clue as to what any of them might be.
Photometers and EMF meters give an overall reading of light and electromagnetic fields respectively. Neither allow us to easily identify possible sources. And yet photometers are hardly, if ever, used in ghost research whereas EMF meters are ubiquitous. So, why is this?
My best guess is cost! There is an excellent, cheap alternative to the photometer which provides much more information and allows the identification of sources of light - the camera. The alternative for the EMF meter, which allows sources of magnetic fields to be identified, is the magnetometer. However, it is both much more expensive and more difficult to use. It is my opinion that, if magnetometers were as cheap as EMF meters, they be used widely instead of the meters. So we may be stuck with EMF meters simply because of an economic accident of history!
But we are where we are. Anyone choosing to use an EMF meter should be fully aware of its limitations.
24 August: Investigating paranormal phenomena
How do you investigate paranormal phenomena? It is a bit like being a detective. You need to gather information from witnesses about what happened, examine the scene of the incident and maybe reconstruct the event. Then you need to analyse all the information you've gathered to see if you can understand what happened.
That's the extremely edited version! To see how to do it in practice you can go on an ASSAP Training Weekend. If you'd like to go on one this year, go here!
23 August: Diverting waves
It's called 'attentional control', the ability to pay attention or concentrate on something. I appear to be spectacularly useless at it. I was trying to pay full attention to checking something important, the other day, when I noticed someone in my peripheral vision. The figure was waving, so it was obvious they wanted my attention. They quickly got it! I was absolutely sure there had not been anyone standing in that position, nor could they have approached without my noticing. Unless it was a ghost, of course!
I felt a little silly when, turning round, I saw that the 'waving person' was actually a bush being vigorously shaken by a stiff breeze. So, yet another case of misperception. What made this example interesting was that it was the movement that attracted my attention. This particular bush did not look that much like a person. If it had not been moving I doubt I would ever have misperceived it as anything other than a bush in any lighting conditions.
So it seems that object movement can contribute to misperception. This should not come as much of a surprise. Who hasn't seen a discarded plastic bag blowing around in the wind and, just for a second, thought, what IS that thing? Any movement, especially when we are not expecting it, is highly noticeable, particularly in peripheral vision. I wonder if my poor attentional control is related to my unusually acute ability to notice misperceptions? It might be worth checking paranormal witnesses for this trait!
After briefly considering these thought-provoking matters, I turned my attention back to the matter in hand. And promptly became bored!
21 August: Is ufology still about UFOs?
Is ufology concerned with UFOs any more? That was the question posed by Hilary Evans (well-known anomaly researcher and one of ASSAP's founders) in the early days of ASSAP. He noted that ufologists had become more interested in alleged alien abduction experiences than actual 'lights in the sky'. He wanted ufologists to return primarily to examining reports of puzzling aerial objects.
There were reasons to question whether abduction cases were even related to traditional reports of lights in the sky. For instance, many abductions showed strong similarities with near sleep experiences. And the content of some experiences displayed signs of being influenced by well-publicised prior reports and even science fiction. Hilary's call for ufologists to return to studying contemporary UFO reports was largely ignored. Instead, the field has become increasingly concerned with re-examining a few 'classic' cases. One reason for this may be the apparent lack of dramatic UFO incidents being reported these days, in itself a matter worthy of discussion. Nowadays UFO reports are dominated by sightings of Chinese lanterns and toy balloons!
Looking at old cases, whether of UFOs, ghosts or any anomalous phenomenon, seldom reveals new reliable information. Memories fade and change while occasional re-discovered contemporary records still have to be assessed for reliability and accuracy. Just because someone wrote something down at the time it doesn't mean it was necessarily accurate (we only have to look at contemporary cases to see that)! In addition, the sites of well-known incidents change over time, sometimes out of all recognition, making any contemporary reconstruction pointless. In most cases, there will be NO reliable new information revealed. The only new thing to emerge will be speculation!
One preoccupation of modern ufology is the popular idea that governments hold lots of information about UFOs, much of it unknown to the public. Personally, I doubt this. UFOs appear pretty much everywhere in the world and by no means all are reported to government agencies. Many are investigated by ufologists - the ones still interested in investigating 'lights in the sky' - who make their findings public! So, given the large number of UFO reports held by ufologists, we can assume they have a reasonably large proportion of the total number of UFOs reported to all agencies, including governments. Given such a large sample, it is highly unlikely that the range of UFO reports investigated solely by government agencies differs significantly to those researched by ufologists. It therefore seems highly unlikely that governments hold any important information about UFOs that ufologists do not already have in their own records.
Of course, you could argue that governments have access to specialist equipment, like radar and military aircraft, that ufologists cannot possibly use! However, there are many 'radar' cases and accounts from commercial aircraft personnel in the public domain. Again, it seems unlikely that cases investigated by governments using such equipment are going to be hugely different to public cases. That is certainly the impression you get looking at the cases released by the UK's MOD. There may be SOME specialist information held by governments that the public don't know but I doubt it makes any material difference to the overall picture of UFOs that ufologists already have from the vast number of public cases.
Ufologists probably already have the information they need to come to a few provisional conclusions about the nature of UFOs (for instance, many reports are clearly the result of misperception). You could say something similar about ghost researchers, many of whom still insist that ghosts are spirits, despite the lack of any compelling evidence. There is no obvious evidence, as yet, that UFOs are extra-terrestrial spacecraft but, as with spirits and ghosts, that will not change such a strongly-held belief.
What would Hilary have made of the state of ufology in 2012? Who can say but if you want to know, you should go to the ASSAP conference Seriously Unidentified at the University of Worcester on 17 November 2012 - details here.
20 August: 'Lack of information' should be a word!
Why is there no word for 'lack of information'? If it turns out that there is one after all, can someone please let me know! Anyway, let's call it LOI for now. Why do we need a word for LOI? Because it's so common in anomaly research!
Take misperception, a cause of many paranormal reports. Here are some typical situations when visual misperception might be noticed:
- object seen in a quick glances
- object seen in poor viewing conditions
- corner of the eye phenomena
- distant object
- unfamiliar object
- partial views of an object (eg shape obscured)
- fast moving objects - may appear to vanish if they do not move as expected by the observer
- objects blending together - part of a foreground object appears to vanish because it 'blends in' visually with a background object (accidental camouflage)
There is a clear theme running through these common causes of misperception - a lack of visual information about the object being seen! In all such cases, a better view (for longer, closer up, from different angles, with better lighting, having previous experience of the object, etc) would remove the misperception. When we misperceive, our brains play a cruel trick on us - they tell us what we are seeing is real even though, in reality, it is our unconscious brain's best guess. Take my example from 17 Aug below. I actually HEARD the voice of the actor I believed I was listening to. I could even see his face in my mind. I had no doubts whatsoever because my brain was telling me it was true. Once I'd heard more of the voice, the misperception vanished abruptly and the voice appeared to change. My brain now told me it was someone else - and that fact was now true!
Such a strong belief in the witness's own interpretation of what they've experienced is common in paranormal cases. Even where it becomes obvious that the witness has misperceived an object as something else (a tree as a human figure, for instance), they often resist the suggestion, even to the point of adding 'new' details to their statements that all support their personal interpretation. If someone sees a misperception vanish, by getting a better view, it's unlikely they'd report it as paranormal, which is why we don't come across such cases! Going through many witness statements it is clear that, in many cases, the phenomenon reported was not seen well.
But it isn't only misperception where LOI lurks. Paranormal photos, of which I've personally examined thousands, are rarely well exposed. They are usually one or more of factors that detract from their clarity, such as being out of focus, over or under-exposed, suffering from long exposure, containing excessive image noise, low resolution and so on. You almost never see a really well-exposed, high resolution photo of something apparently paranormal. Instead, they nearly all suffer from LOI. A clearer, better lit, higher resolution version of a photo of an apparently paranormal object could well reveal its true mundane nature (I've still yet to come across a photo that looks unambiguously paranormal). Have a look at the UFO gallery for an example of this. In most cases, LOI produces, or contributes to, the apparent paranormal nature of the photo.
Then there are things like EVP, whose recordings are rarely unambiguously distinguishable from ambient noise present at the time. And there are many other aspects of anomalous research where LOI lurks. Indeed, as soon as you start to investigate paranormal cases, you come across it everywhere. You will find many witnesses who are completely convinced they saw something paranormal even though other people nearby saw nothing unusual. One obvious possible explanation for this is that the other witnesses had a better view of the apparently paranormal phenomenon!
Some people, having noted the prevalence of LOI in our field, have theorized that the paranormal itself may actually require, or even be a product of, noise and random events. If that is so, it is going to be very difficult to disentangle it from real noise and random events!
17 August: I hear the wrong man!
Casually turning on the radio recently, I heard the familiar voice of a well-known actor. But then, quite abruptly, the voice became someone else's! The tone and accent changed markedly and I no longer recognized who the person speaking was. It was a weird and unusually vivid aural misperception. It wasn't simply a question of me thinking I recognized someone and then realizing my mistake. The sound of the voice actually changed - for me, at least. I've no doubt that if I hadn't 'recognized' the voice, it would not have 'changed' at all, just as voices don't normally 'change' in mid-conversation!
During the period when I 'recognized' the voice, I could see a picture of the actor's face in my mind, though I could not recall his name, if I ever knew it (I found it later on the internet)! This demonstrated how my memory was affecting my aural perception, unconsciously making the voice 'fit' who I thought it was. Once my unconscious brain realized its mistake, the illusion vanished and I heard the voice as it really was. I think this happened once I'd heard enough of the voice to realize my mistake. Again, all of this was unconscious - all I actually perceived was a known voice, a known face and then an unknown voice and no face! Needless to say, the voice was NOT the actor I thought it was but someone else quite famous that I'd never heard of or, indeed, heard before.
Crucially, if I'd only heard a few seconds of the voice I might STILL believe it to be the actor I 'mistakenly' recognized! This is important because reports of apparent paranormal voices, like EVP or poltergeists, are usually of short duration. So, we must treat any reports of people recognizing short apparent paranormal voice messages with caution. Similarly, the reported tone, accent and so on may be affected by what the listener is expecting to hear. For instance, if there is supposed to be the ghost of a Scottish person haunting a location, any EVP sounds may appear to have a Scottish accent! This is particularly likely with formant noise where the 'words' are produced entirely by inside the unconscious part of the witness's brain!
7 August: Hearing psychic messages
Regular readers will know that I have an acquaintance who has weird experiences similar to those reported by psychics but caused by MWR - microsleep with REM instead. During a microsleep episode you become momentarily unconscious for a few seconds. Though not a common experience, most people can get microsleeps if sleep deprived. A tiny proportion of people who experience microsleep fairly frequently can go straight into a REM, or dream, state during a microsleep. Usually, you do not start dreaming until you have been asleep for some time so to go straight into REM is highly unusual and MWR may be associated with a sleep disorder.
MWR can produce distinctly psychic-like experiences. For instance, you can get REM intrusion, where imagery from a dream is mixed with a real scene being viewed by the experiencer, like hypnagogia. Recently, my acquaintance has been 'hearing' someone 'talking' during MWR episodes. The words are indistinct and impossible to make out. Someone who thought these experiences were psychic might well treat this episode as being addressed by a spirit!
This made we wonder how apparent communication from spirits could arise. If such apparent communication is not originating with actual spirits, as is clearly the case with MWR, the only obvious alternative is that 'messages' must be coming from the experiencer's own unconscious. But how can our unconscious send us messages as if from a different personality?
It's not as weird as it sounds, when you consider dreaming. In our dreams, people we know, and strangers, can do or say anything without our conscious control. These 'people' are clearly images being produced by our own unconscious brain. In MWR, where dreams are momentarily intruding into our conscious existence, there's no reason to suppose that such 'invented' people should not feature and even talk. So those voices my acquaintance hears probably appear in much the same way that other 'people' appear in, and address us, in our dreams.
Near sleep experiences, like MWR and hypnagogia, show that it is possible for our brains to go into a state where the unconscious can intrude directly into conscious experience. Because we do not consciously control our unconscious, it can feel like there is someone else present. If you are not aware of such 'mixed' conscious and unconscious brain states it would easy to think that something or someone from outside, like a spirit, was involved. I don't know if there are people out there with MWR who think they are psychic but it seems likely.
PS: I saw a car with a Union flag flying from it as it passed me walking today. It appeared to me to have 'England' written across it. By chance, the car stopped a little way beyond me and, as I drew level with it, I was able to examine the flag more closely. It actually had 'Team GB' written on it! I blame the fluttering flag and expectation for my obvious misperception!
3 August: The mystery of the glowing lamp post!
When I saw the blue glowing light I assumed I was imagining it. It was like a special effect in a movie. Surely it couldn't be real! You don't get strange blue glowing lights around objects in ordinary real life. I closed my eyes and opened them but it was still there. I got closer but it still didn't vanish. I stood just a metre away, close enough to touch it, and it was STILL there!
It looked like a layer of blue mist somehow clinging to the surface of a silver-painted metal lamp post. It appeared to be a few centimetres thick but seemed to vary in depth depending on the exact angle at which I looked at it. Could this finally be 'that moment' when I see something clearly anomalous, completely reproducible and profoundly real?
At first I suspected it must be my glasses. When I looked at the lamp post close up without them, the blue glow vanished. However, I also noticed that the glow disappeared when I was really close-up (less than a metre away) even when I was wearing glasses. At the distance where the blue glow was easiest to see, I could not focus on the lamp post without glasses. So the glow could have still been there, just blurred! I also noticed that the blue glow vanished if I looked at the lamp post from an angle (with glasses), rather than looking straight at it. So what was going on?
The lighting at the time of my observation was hazy sunshine, filtering though thin cloud. I wondered if that might have a bearing on the phenomenon. Suspecting my glasses once again, I looked at various other painted metal objects, including silver ones. They did NOT have any glow surrounding them! It seemed to be only some specific lamp posts that were glowing. Later, I returned, wearing an older pair of glasses. This time there was almost no glow to be seen at all, even though the lighting conditions were similar. I say 'almost' because there was a hint of the mysterious glow when I looked at the lamp posts at an acute angle.
So here is what I knew. I could not see the glow with the naked eye. I could see it easily with one pair of glasses but hardly at all with another. The effect only occurred with one particular set of lamp posts, all painted identically. It was, thus, possible to conclude that I was dealing with a normal optical effect and nothing anomalous or paranormal. That was a disappointment but it still left the mystery of the precise mechanism involved.
I then realized that I had a photo of another lamp post painted, I believe, with the same paint, taken just a few weeks ago. If it was an effect that depended on lenses, maybe it would show up in a photo as cameras use lenses! And here (right) is a cropped (but otherwise unedited) section from that photo.
To me, at least, there is indeed a hint of a blue glow just beyond the edge of the lamp post. It is most easily seen against the dark background at the top. It also appears against the sloping section of the post lower down! It's possible that you won't see the glow, depending on the equipment you're using to view this page! To me, however, it looks to be there, pretty much as I saw it 'in the wild', though it is less pronounced here!
But there is a problem with this photo!. The lamp post, unlike the leaves behind, is slightly out of focus. This could be contributing to a fuzzy edge to the post. However, the 'blue haze' effect in the photo looks too pronounced to me to be purely a focus problem.
So what else could be causing this effect? I think it is photographic glare. This happens when intense light from highly reflective surfaces causes a loss of detail in subjects and non-real glowing effects, just like this one. As glasses have lenses, like cameras, they too may be subject to such glare. It seems that the particular paint used on this lamp post is unusually effective at reflecting light. Certainly, when I stared at one of these lamp posts for a few seconds there was a strong after-image, suggesting it was very bright indeed.
The significance of all this to paranormal research is that people who wear glasses (and presumably contact lenses) may see effects like the blue glow. The degree of the effect will vary significantly, depending on the particular glasses worn and how reflective the object being looked at is. If anyone reports seeing a strange glow around an object you need to check the lighting conditions, the reflectivity of the object and whether the observer was wearing glasses or contacts. Glare can also crop up in photos, as above, as a weird fuzzy edge to objects, even when they are sharply in focus.
1 August: The embarrassing way to see ghosts!
A man is walking along an empty suburban street, glancing from side to side, and occasionally behind. He is wearing a T-shirt on which is written, in bold bright red letters, the words "I am an idiot!".
OK, this hasn't really happened, at least not that I know of. It is a thought experiment of mine designed to enhance misperception (which is thought to be responsible for many sightings of ghosts, UFOs, monsters, etc). We all misperceive all the time but most of us never even notice it. Misperception relies on the presence of an object, or a pattern of light and shadow, that is seen as something else. I have, on several occasions, misperceived tree stumps as human figures (see here for instance). But there are other factors, mostly relating to the witness, that can affect whether someone notices a misperception. For instance, if you fear or expect to see something, it enhances your chances of misperceiving it. Thus, spooky-looking places will produce more than their fair share of sightings of ghostly figures because the witness is expecting them, though often only unconsciously.
Another factor that appears to increase the chances of misperceiving is the fear of being seen! If you desperately do NOT want anyone to see you, it is easy to misperceive a face or figure at every window as you walk down a street, even when all you are really seeing are house plants and ornaments! This is the effect being reproduced in the thought experiment. The man in the tee shirt desperately wants not to be seen. He may well see 'figures' or 'faces' in house windows which are misperceptions. They vanish as he looks closely at them, just like a ghost. On another occasion, without that T-shirt, he will notice no misperceptions at all.
Is there much evidence that people are more likely to see ghosts when they don't want to be seen? Not that I'm aware of but, would people even admit to it? There may well be some ghost accounts where people recount everything while leaving out the embarrassing circumstances. There may also be other ghost sightings that are never reported because the witness doesn't want to admit to the circumstances at all! Unless people are willing to admit to these things, such sightings may well go under-reported.
I've never tried my thought experiment though I do have personal experience of how not wanting to be seen encourages misperception. On the rare occasions when I have preferred not to be seen in public, I definitely noticed more misperceptions than usual. The embarrassing circumstances were, in my case, looking for wildlife. Many interesting animals and plants now regularly inhabit suburban streets. But looking for them can easily be misinterpreted by onlookers who have no idea what you're up to!
|For a review of paranormal research in the noughties, see here.
Last month's (July) website figures are an average of 9355 hits per day. This is slightly up on the previous month's 9326 daily average.
Previous blog pages ...
- 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 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 2012