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

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

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

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

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

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

ASSAP @ 30: A series of posts summarising what we have learned through thirty years of ASSAP, whose anniversary was 10 June. See here!

NB: WDTHDWP = 'what does this have to do with the paranormal'

26 February: Can confusion cause paranormal reports?

BalloonI like to think I am a little more observant than most people. I am curious and take an active interest in almost everything that goes on around me. So, for instance, I DO notice the wildlife in the street that others don't. And I'm not just interested in wildlife. I notice what people are doing and changes in my local area. So the following experience left me a little embarrassed.

There is a supermarket that I visit around twice a week. I know where every product that I might ever be likely to buy is located. I was at the checkout the other day, idly waiting to be served, when something struck me. There was a gap in the checkout layout that I could not recall seeing before. I slowly realised, to my amazement, that since my previous visit just a couple of days before, the checkouts had been entirely replaced! Although they were in the same place, their shape and layout was quite different. How could I not have noticed until I'd already been standing by one for a couple of minutes?

I am, of course, aware of change blindness. But while not noticing a difference between two similar photos is at least understandable, standing in a completely changed checkout layout without realizing it is less so. My best explanation is that, because I know the shop so well, I was in a sort of autopilot state and not paying much attention. If the checkout had been moved to a completely new location, I'm sure I'd have noticed straight away. But honestly, I have no excuse. I suspect there were other regular visitors to the same shop who never noticed at all. I mentioned the change to the checkout assistant and she seemed surprised that I'd noticed.

I was fascinated by the fact that I only noticed this big change in layout by spotting a minor detail, a gap that was not there before, first. Indeed, when I first saw the gap I thought my memory was playing up and that it must always have been there. But then I noticed other differences and realised what was going on. I felt slightly confused for a second or two as I perused the new layout. Perhaps it was cognitive dissonance.

We know that misperception substitutes poorly seen objects with others from visual memory that might be expected to be present. So, my feeling of confusion was probably my brain realizing its mistake and updating its expectations. I wonder if this sort of brain state might be a factor sometimes when people report anomalous phenomena. We know about the new house effect which is largely concerned with unexpected sounds. I wonder if there is a visual equivalent when people experience drastic changes to their visual environment. Frankly, had I seen a ghost during my 'moment of confusion', it would not have surprised me in the least!

And the photo? If I'd looked at the scene shown I would never have noticed the balloon on the left side of picture. It was only because I'd seen it traverse the sky to that position that I knew what it was. We humans really don't tend to notice much!

24 February: When stuff just disappears

Dark crowAnyway, I was looking out of a window at the outside world when I noticed something disquieting. A familiar post looked rather shorter than normal, which should be impossible. I got some binoculars for a closer look but even with them, the top appeared to be entirely missing!

Later in the day I looked again. Now the post appeared whole and normal, even without binoculars. So how had I been completely unable, even with the aid of binoculars, to see the top of the post, no more than about 7m away and with nothing in between, earlier? It defied belief! How can part of a post just go missing in broad daylight and then reappear? Indeed, I had trouble believing what I wasn't seeing at the time. The top of the post actually appeared to be missing!

Not so dark crowIt was one of those contrasty days. I suspect only a photographer would ever say that. After a while, photographers start to think about the the world the way their camera sees it, which can be markedly different to what is seen with the naked eye. A photo would definitely have shown the top of the post as having a dark shadow over it. No details would have been visible in the shadow (like the big black blob in the photo above right). However, the naked eye has a bigger dynamic range than a digital camera sensor. That means it can distinguish more shades of grey between black and white and see details in shadows where a photo of the same scene shows none. As expected, I COULD see some details in the shadow, particularly with the binoculars, but the top of the post was simply not there!

The ability of shadows to alter or even completely hide important details of a scene can help to explain some paranormal reports where objects apparently disappear or appear from nowhere. We tend to think of bright sunshine as being excellent viewing conditions but, particularly when the sun is low, this not necessarily true. The top of the post became visible again in overcast conditions!

The lower photo is the original of the one above which has been artificially darkened to obscure the identity of the crow. Details often go missing in shadows in photos. This can explain apparently how, in some anomalous photos, things can appear quite different to what the witness remembers of the scene. It's not paranormal, just lack of dynamic range.

PS: I found this excellent post in a blog recently. I like the video which looks like moving shadow ghosts to me.

21 February: Daylight orbs

Daylight orbDespite the compelling evidence that orbs are strongly illuminated out-of-focus bits of dust, water droplets, insects etc (see here and here, for instance), there are still people who think some are paranormal. They usually point to examples like daylight orbs. You cannot, for instance, blame a flash for a daylight orb. Except that you can! In many cases, daylight orbs actually do use flash, as the EXIF data with the photo makes clear. Such 'fill-in' flash may be used by today's highly automated cameras without the photographer even noticing.

But there are many orbs produced in daylight that do not require the presence of a flash. For instance, sunlit insects often show up as orbs (see here and here, for instance). But orbs can even be photographed on dull days. Take the example here (photo right). You can see an obvious branch in the foreground and a bright orb to its left. But there is another, less bright, orb to the right that is more interesting. It is about halfway up the photo, above and apparently touching or just behind the main branch, below a yellow hanging linear object.

Daylight orb 2Now here is exactly the same scene in a photo (right) taken 3s later. The difference is that the focus has shifted from the branch, which is now a blur in the background, to the orb just mentioned. The orb is actually a droplet of water hanging from a catkin (yes it was raining again!). So here is an example of an orb on dull day! All you really need for an orb is an out of focus object.

An interesting question that arises is this: why does the orb (and its catkin) appear to be in the background in the first photo when it is clearly really in the foreground? I think its because the background is out of focus. So, because our brains are not used to seeing both foreground and background objects out of focus, we tend to 'see' both as background objects. It might explain how some orbs appear to be a long way from the camera when, in fact, the vast majority are very close to it.

Day orb 3To test this theory, I had a look through other photos I took at the same time. Sure enough, I found one where the catkin is out of focus but clearly in front of the a branch (photo right). And now the catkin looks, as it should do, obviously in front of the branch. Incidentally, I think the illusion that the catkin is behind, in the first photo, is helped by its proximity to the branch.

Interestingly, our visual interpretation of photos is, of course, a learned skill. When we use our naked eyes, everything we see tends to be in focus. That's because our eyes focus automatically as we shift view. Still cameras don't do that so our brains learn how to interpret what they see in still photos. This unconsciously affects what we see in them. Our brains use all sort of processing 'short cuts' to speed up how we interpret what we see. Misperception is example of this. So, sometimes, we misinterpret a photo simply because of all the similar examples we've seen in the past.

20 February: Wall anomaly

Wall anomalyThe vast majority of anomalous photos fall into a small number of well known categories and are all photographic anomalies (see here). So, it is always interesting to come across something different. In the photo here (right) you see a brick wall. But on it there are at least two obvious fuzzy white vertical 'threads'. No such object was seen at the time of exposure. So what are they?

Given that the photo is sharp, the presence of such fuzzy features is certainly anomalous. The 'threads' seem to be attached to the wall at their top end and hang outwards. This is why I call them 'threads'. The most easily viewed example is just to the left of the centre of the photo.

A clue to the identity of these 'threads' comes from the wet appearance of the wall, a familiar look this winter! A second clue is the exposure time, which is 1/80s, which is relatively slow. The 'threads' are, in fact, droplets of water hitting the wall and bouncing after falling from a bridge some 20m above. With that kind of fall, the droplets were travelling quite fast, enough to show as blurred trails or 'threads'. If those bricks are around 6.5 cm high (standard house brick size), and the 'threads' are a similar length, then the drops must have been moving at around 5 m/s or around half the terminal velocity for a typical water droplet. I only mention this rather tedious point as an example of what can be worked out simply from looking at a photo!

So, in fact, it was a photographic artefact caused by the motion blur of a rapidly moving object. So it's a variation on a well-known cause of anomalous photos with most motion blurred photos being caused by camera shake. Note how important it was, in this case, to understand the layout of the location and the exact circumstances, like the weather!

18 February: Why simulacra rarely cause misperception

SimulacrumI was thinking of using 'a fold in the fabric of time' as a random title for this post to make it sound really exciting.

Anyway, just to be clear, the kind of simulacrum I'm talking about here is an object which, by chance, resembles something quite different. So it might include things like an apparent face or human figure, for instance, appearing in vegetation, clouds, a rock formation or some other object. In the photo (right) I think the rock formation resembles a camel with the head of a monkey. Others may not see it but you get the general idea. Simulacra are not limited to faces or figures but these appear to be the commonest examples.

The most important single point about simulacra is that they only resemble something else. If I look at the photo here I don't actually SEE a monkey's face, I see a rock formation that resembles one. This is quite different to misperception where the object being misperceived is substituted for another one in our brains. We don't see a tree that vaguely resembles a human figure, we only see the substituted figure. In fact, we don't see the original tree at all!

But here's the puzzle. A witness may easily misperceive a poorly-seen tree as a human figure. And yet, the same person would never misperceive a rock formation like the one in the photo as a monkey's face. Even if they agree that it looks like a monkey's faced, they only ever see a rock formation. So why do objects which quite strongly resemble something else, simulacra, seldom get misperceived?

Well, consider the 'monkey face' rock in the photo. If you were standing in front of it, even in poor viewing conditions, you would never misperceive it as a real monkey's face. That's because it is far too large to be a real monkey's face! In my experience, you only misperceive objects when they are at the correct scale. Also, you tend to misperceive objects in places where you might reasonably expect to see them. So, a large plant in a window might be seen outside as someone looking out because it is roughly the right scale and position.

Of course, there are sometimes simulacra that do, by chance, happen to be roughly the right size as the object they resemble and these may well be misperceived, in the right viewing conditions. However, many simulacra are completely the wrong size and in a place where the object they resemble would never be seen.

17 February: The haunted milk bottle

Bottle capI was alone. It was silent. The howling wind which, with torrential rain, has provided the sound track to this winter, was taking a day off. So I could hardly miss the insistent tapping sound coming from an adjacent room. The taps were at a regular interval of a few seconds. Utterly mystified, I entered the room where the raps were coming from but could see nothing that might be their cause.

I was reduced to moving around slowly and listening carefully to localise the sound. Finally, I discovered it was coming from a plastic milk bottle. I looked at it, held it, shook it, but remained baffled. How could an empty milk bottle tap by itself? Unless it was haunted, perhaps? I wondered if I should establish a code of one tap for yes, two for no.

Gradually, I localized the sound to the screw cap. It was tapping periodically as it lifted ever so slightly and then dropped again. Suddenly, the recent history of the bottle seemed relevant. I had, minutes before, removed the bottle from a fridge and emptied it of milk. This was because the contents was beyond its use-by date. I had halfheartedly screwed the cap back on and left it. This meant that the bottle was cold from the fridge and now filled with air. The room was warm. Clearly, as the bottle warmed up, the air expanded and pushed the cap up. After a little gas escaped, the pressure reduced so that the cap fell back, re-sealing the bottle and producing a tapping noise. This sequence repeated every time the warming air built up sufficient pressure to momentarily force the cap up.

This incident reminded me of similar ones I've experienced in the past with bottles removed from a fridge and partially sealed. Instead of a tapping noise, the usual result has been a mysterious whistling noise. The cause, air warming up and expanding, was the same. I suspect the tapping phenomenon is much harder to achieve as it requires a delicate balance of the weight of the cap and just how tightly it is screwed on. The lesson is, when you hear phantom whistling or tapping, it is worth checking any containers recently removed from a fridge!

14 February: Being stared at by a ghost!

CrowRegular readers will be aware of the 'door ghost' I see from time to time (if not please see here). I haven't seen that ghost much of late. I'm not sure why, perhaps because I'm so used to it. Anyway, recently I've had a couple of unnerving experiences at the same 'door ghost' location. At first I was just vaguely aware of 'something' behind me, seen in reflection, but paid it little attention (as you do)! Then, on the latest occasion, I became distinctly aware of 'someone' looking right over my shoulder, disturbingly close!

What made this experience slightly alarming was that this person was in a completely different position to the usual door ghost. And, being over my shoulder, it clearly couldn't be a misperception of my hand! So, another ghost entirely!

A closer inspection soon revealed that it was actually the reflected view of the silhouette of the hood on my coat. Here in the UK we've been suffering a series of nasty storms and I've got used to wearing a coat with a hood every time I go out, something I rarely do normally. When I first saw the 'person' I was vaguely aware of a face. I could not make out any recognisable features but I was, nevertheless, convinced it was a face looking over my shoulder.

It was clearly another case of misperception, like the original door ghost. But what about the strong impression I formed that the 'face' was staring at me? Being stared at is an oddly common feature of ghost reports. My interpretation of my misperception is that my brain decided that the hood was a face because there was nothing above it and a face is the highest point of a human figure. I suspect that it decided the 'face' was looking at me because, what else would it be doing just behind my shoulder! This is the logic of expectation, which plays an important part in misperception. And there is another relevant factor at play here. I've noticed that misperceptions are often things you want, or don't want, to see! I think you can guess which category this sighting fits into. This might explain some other cases of motionless ghostly figures apparently staring at witnesses

Another recent sighting of mine provided an interesting variation on this theme. I saw a black bag blowing around in a street, a common sight in the recent windy weather. I could not see it well because I was looking towards the sun and the bag was in an area of deep shadow, quite common viewing conditions for winter. I was, nevertheless, curious and changed position to get a better look. The 'bag' turned out to be a crow! Most misperceptions I've experienced have been of inanimate objects seen as people or, more rarely, animals. So this example shows that it can also happen the other way round.

Another interesting point, which might explain why I notice misperceptions so much more than other people, is my curiosity. If I hadn't been curious, I'd still think I'd seen a black bag! I have, on several occasions, seen a human figure at a window. On closer inspection I then realised it was a misperceived plant. But if I hadn't bothered with that 'close inspection', and later found evidence that there was no one in that room at the time, I might have concluded that I'd seen a ghost!

10 February: Ghost on a bridge

ShadowI was crossing a footbridge over a railway when I noticed a man ascending the steps on the opposite side. I expected to pass him in the middle. Except that I didn't! There was no one on the bridge at all, or on the steps where I'd seen the man. A ghost, perhaps?

Some background is useful to appreciate my surprise. You may ask, why didn't I keep the man in view as I crossed the bridge? Even if I'd wanted to (and why would I?) it is not possible because, rather unusually, the bridge has a roof. Also, the stairs approach the central span in different ways. I was climbing the set of stairs that approach the central span at a 90 degree angle. On the other side the stairs approach in a sort of squared spiral. The overall result is that, if you are crossing the bridge, you can only see other people on it at certain specific points. So, it was perfectly normal for me to lose sight of the man at first and I thought nothing of it.

When I reached the position where I'd seen the man standing, I examined it carefully in case there was anything there that I might have misperceived as a human figure. There wasn't. So was it really a ghost?

As I was leaving the bridge I saw the man walking away, on the same side of the bridge where I'd first seen him. The obvious conclusion was that he'd climbed the bridge part way, turned and retreated back the way he'd come, for some reason.

I think the frequency of ghost sightings being caused by actual people is woefully underestimated. I often read reports that discount the possibility by speculating over people's possible motives for appearing in odd places or doing unusual things. One frequent idea is that people are 'playing the ghost' as a joke, an idea then dismissed because it involves too much effort! Firstly, I see no reason why people playing practical jokes should not put in considerable effort if they so choose. Secondly, I think there are many other reasons why someone could be behaving in an apparently unlikely way, many of which may not be obvious to someone else.

I've no idea why the man on the bridge turned back. Maybe he was lost. Perhaps someone called him back. Maybe he just changed his mind about where he wanted to go. The point is, speculating about what motivates other people is not a sound way of dismissing a possible cause of a ghost report. We cannot presume to understand what motivates people we've never met.

To really eliminate the possibility of a physical person being present you'd need more evidence. For instance, if you see a figure in a room that is known to be locked, it's reasonable evidence (though not conclusive) that there is no real person involved. But in most ghost sighting situations, it is not so easy to dismiss such a possibility.

7 February: Noticing the stuff we usually ignore

UFO lightIf, like me, you tend to notice the minutiae of everyday life, you'll sometimes observe situations that could easily give rise to reports of the paranormal. Most people tend to pay little attention to such trivial details, unsurprisingly as they have busy lives. So when they DO notice these things, it can catch them by surprise. It is my opinion, based on extensive experience, that this is probably an important principle behind the generation of paranormal reports - namely people occasionally noticing things they usually ignore.

Here are some recent examples of my own. There are many more documented in this blog over the years.

Recently I was on a bus, passing a familiar stall in the street. I noticed the stall appeared to have a new striped awning. As I watched, the 'awning' vanished! I realised it was a reflection in the glass of the bus window. If you look out of a bus window you will often see reflections like this. However, most are obviously reflections and do appear to be not part of the outside scene through the window. This one appeared to be part of the external scene because it just happened to fit in terms of size, angle, position, opacity and so on. Against almost any other scene I'd have just seen it as a reflection. As with other misperceptions, it worked because it fitted the scene. For instance, the objects I've misperceived as human figures (or ghosts) always appeared to be in positions where someone might reasonably stand, such as on a path or at a window. I've never seen a ghostly figure in a position where a person would not be expected, like floating above the ground perhaps.

Recently I saw a single bright light moving slowly and silently across the sky. Though I thought it must be a plane, that appeared highly unlikely because it was full daylight. It looked like the one in the photo (above right) except that it was broad daylight! In my experience, aircraft don't usually display lights in such conditions. It appeared to be approaching so I waited to see if I could get a better view. It WAS an aircraft! Why it had a light on in full daylight I've no idea. But this shows that these things CAN happen and the possibility of a plane should not be ruled out with daylight 'light in the sky' UFOs.

I have previously mentioned how the crows at a railway station I frequent have started to behave more like street pigeons. Crows are usually quite wary and avoid close human contact. But the ones in this area are different. I've grown used to seeing them quite close up. However, recently, at the same location, I was startled by an unexpected sudden movement at a waste paper bin by the path I was walking along. There was a crow perched on the bin, so close I could literally have reached out and touched it. And the bird did not even fly off instantly. Instead, it stared at me for a second or two before flying off a metre or so. I've never been anywhere near that close to a wild crow before and I speak as a keen birder! The lesson for anomaly researchers? Nature will always surprise you!

4 February: Can an explanation be too obvious?

Crows in a treeOne of the more interesting questions I'm never asked is: how did I first get involved with xenonormal studies? Well, it started on ASSAP investigations many years ago. I was on ghost vigils at places with a well-known reputation for being haunted. In particular, there were haunting hot spots within buildings where the same odd events were repeatedly reported by different witnesses on separate occasions. I knew what to expect, which goes against the principle of ghost vigils but it shouldn't have mattered as these were well investigated cases.

On several occasions I saw or heard exactly what I had been told to expect. Except that what I was experiencing clearly had an obvious (to me) natural explanation. My first reaction was that I must be mistaken. The 'real' haunting phenomenon must be something else, much less obviously explained. But what I was experiencing matched precisely what had been reported. Surely it couldn't be that simple? Except that it was. And if I hadn't known what to expect I would have reported no strange activity whatsoever.

So how come previous investigators hadn't already realised the obvious explanation for these hot spot phenomena? Maybe, like me, they thought it couldn't be that simple. But why had the original witnesses reported these things as haunting phenomena in the first place? Well, I've witnessed odd phenomena in my every day life that have, for a while at least, had me completely mystified. I've documented some of them in this blog down the years. It is entirely likely for witnesses, not used to investigating strange phenomena, to report unusual but normal stuff as paranormal.

This is why xenonormal studies are so useful. Just as the police rely on techniques like forensics to solve crimes, so we paranormal investigators need our own specialized techniques, like those that come out of xenonormal studies. I wouldn't, for instance, analyze an anomalous photo if I did not have a knowledge of photographic anomalies. Nor would I analyze an EVP recording without checking to see if might be formant noise. And I would not guess likely causes of a ghost sighting without first considering the possibilities of misperception or hallucination. And I also would never dismiss a possible explanation simply because it seemed 'too obvious'.

3 February: Foreground oddities in photos

Foreground oddityI often get to examine anomalous photos like the one here (right) which have something odd in the foreground. As in this example, the object is almost always blurred, usually because it's out of focus but sometimes from swift motion. And in just about every case, the photographer did not see anything at the time that might account for the anomaly.

In this particular example, the subject of the photo is a clue to the identity of the anomaly. The blurred object is a flying gull. The two 'anomalous objects' are its wings! With a flying object like this, it would be easy for the photographer to miss seeing it while concentrating on taking a photo. Being both closer to the camera and moving rapidly, the bird is probably both motion-blurred and out of focus. As well as flying objects, falling ones (like leaves) are a frequent cause of this kind of photo. Tree and plant branches are also frequent culprits for this type of anomalous photo.

Despite the fact that the objects concerned are usually mundane, they are often hard to recognise from the photo. As well being blurred, the objects may be lit differently to the rest of the photo. But perhaps the biggest difficulty in recognizing such objects is that, frequently, only a partial view is available, like the example here. A big clue to the identity of the object in this example is colour, though shadows make it less obvious.

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

Last month's (January) website figures are an average of 10426 hits per day. This is up on the previous month's 9940 daily average.

ASSAP

Previous blog pages ...

  • 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

© Maurice Townsend 2014