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.

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!

30 January: How can I stop seeing flying rods?

Flying rodsThere's one! And another! I just can't stop seeing flying rods while watching TV these days and it's annoying. Like most people, I never used to notice insects flitting across the foreground of a shot on TV, but I do now. With lots of TV drama now shot outside studios, not to mention news and sports coverage, there are many chances for insects to flit across a shot. I even notice insects when watching videos I've viewed several times before, having never previously noticed their presence there! They are not always fully fledged elongated rods but they are always recognizable as insects.

It all started when I did my own research into flying rods. After that I started noticing them on TV programmes for the first time. How had I never noticed them before? It's a bit life when you first take an interest in wildlife. You realise it is all around you, and always has been, but you just didn't see it before.

The same thing happened with misperception. I never noticed my own misperceptions until I found out about them. It was as though conscious knowledge affected my unconscious perception. Since perception is mostly a brain thing, I think that is precisely what has happened.

This sort of 'sensitized perception' (sorry couldn't of a better term!) may be the reason why some people think they are psychic when, in fact, they are not. If someone starts noticing their own misperceptions and interprets them as ghosts or spirits, they may well consider themselves psychic. Indeed, I see ghosts from time to time myself these days, though I know they are misperceptions (ironic considering all the years I spent visiting haunted buildings and seeing nothing). It could also explain some 'repeater' witnesses to UFOs.

Having become sensitized to these perceptions, my question is this - how can I turn them off? So far, the evidence points to a resounding - I can't! Just as I can't 'unlearn' how to ride a bike or swim, it seems I cannot 'unlearn' noticing misperception, flying rods or wildlife. We see what we know! So it seems my TV watching is now forever doomed to be interrupted by insects flitting around the shot.

24 January: New cases are always needed!

UFOParanormal photos never fail to surprise me! Just when I think I've seen all the photographic artefacts possible, someone sends me a photo that is hard to explain (at least, initially). Although most anomalous photos received by ASSAP are known artefacts (see here for the different types), just occasionally something new comes along. Such puzzles are always welcome because they can extend our knowledge of the many causes of apparently paranormal photos. And trying to reproduce such strange photos, or just experimenting, can reveal whole new classes of potentially weird photos. The UFO pictured, (right) for example, is actually a soap bubble! I've seen similar photos reported as UFOs since but, at the time, it was just an experiment in photographing odd-looking things.

No single person can ever dream up all the possible ways a camera might be used to produce a weird artefact, so looking at shots from others is vital. Indeed, this principle is important throughout anomaly research. If you spend your time studying just a few paranormal cases in detail, you may miss clues to understanding that material that can only come from examining other examples. It is important for paranormal investigators to constantly look at new case material as it is reported. There is no such thing as a 'standard haunting'. To understand the haunting phenomenon we must examine as many possible examples as possible.

One problem with surveying a lot of case material like this is that reporting standards are, sadly, highly variable in our subject. You should, then, put most weight on the cases investigated to a high standard while treating the rest with caution. By contrast, the great thing about examining original photos is that you can apply a common standard in all cases - your own! And maybe, somewhere, there is even a genuinely paranormal photo out there.

23 January: Can you photograph a fairy?

Fairy!Is it possible to photograph the paranormal? I don't know! A lot of people clearly think it is, as the continuing stream of photos sent to ASSAP for comment demonstrates. Since beginning an informal study into paranormal photos, we've now received over 2000 pictures from more than 600 different photographers using dozens of different models of camera. In addition, there are many thousands of photos that purport to show the paranormal on the web and in books.

Since there is plenty of compelling evidence that people experience incidents that they consider paranormal, it seems reasonable to at least try to photograph such events. However, investigations show that many paranormal sightings are caused by misperception or hallucination, both of which are subjective and so not photographable (though in the case of misperception there is at least usually an object, albeit natural, to take a picture of).

Only in very few cases are ghosts both seen and photographed at the same time. This fits with the fact that most such sightings are actually subjective. However, the main reason for this tiny number is that hardly anyone is carrying a camera when they happen to see a ghost! It is possible that this may change with so many people routinely carrying camera phones nowadays. But, even then, sightings of ghosts are often so brief that the witness does not have time, or does not think of, taking a photograph with the phone in their pocket.

In fact, the vast majority of paranormal photos show things that the photographer did NOT see at the time of exposure. And it is for this very reason that they think that what is visible in the picture could be paranormal. Unfortunately, in the majority of cases (probably over 90%), the odd things seen in such photos are actually photographic artefacts. These are created by such things as problems with focus, exposure, reflections, refraction, diffraction, shadows and so on. Of the small minority of other kinds of anomalous photos, many are misidentifications, unnoticed (but real and natural) objects and a tiny number of fakes. So the question of whether it is even possible to photograph the paranormal remains open.

And what about the striking photo of an apparent fairy (above, right)? It appears to show a figure with a round head, wings, arms and legs, like the 'typical' fairy shown in countless illustrations in story books. The whole object has a white, translucent look, adding to its otherworldly feel. The photo was taken outdoors and, apart from cropping, has not been altered in any way!

Fairy (less cropped)!This photo was taken recently on a dull day near a river. It actually shows a small insect, one of a large swarm that were present by the water. The photo is heavily cropped and, when returned to its original context (right), you can see it is tiny and one of many. The 'fairy' is the sharpest-looking insect in the top left corner.

You can see, in the upper photo, that the insect is slightly blurred by motion (exposure time was 1/160s) and soft focus. The ghostly white look came from the dull, diffuse, grey lighting (it was heavily overcast). It was taken using a telephoto, which is why the insect is not in sharp focus. The plant was the focus point of the shot but the insects were slightly behind it, just out of the depth of field.

Although the photo was taken deliberately to reproduce paranormal photos (an attempt at flying rods), the 'fairy' effect was not intended or noticed at the time. But what was known for sure, at the time, was that the object was an insect. Someone else taking the same photo may not have been aware of this and reported it as a genuine fairy photo!

18 January: I saw what I know!

'I know what I saw' is a phrase you sometimes hear from witnesses to apparently paranormal events. In the case of misperception it could accurately be reversed to 'I saw what I know'. That's because expectation plays an important role in the visual content of such experiences.

I should have written 'I heard what I know' because I am concerned with sound here, rather than vision, but the same principle applies. Imagine you are on a ghost vigil and you hear a tapping sound from somewhere nearby. You look to face the source of the sound to see what might be causing it. There is nothing to see but, are you even looking the right way?

You remember that the tone of the sound was reminiscent of someone tapping on a solid wooden door. So, you're looking at the bulky door to the room. In other words, you are only looking where you EXPECT the source of the sound was, because it sounded like someone tapping on the door. In reality, the sound could have come from somewhere else entirely.

We humans can locate the direction of most sounds, depending on their frequency and distance, using various techniques. One is the wave phase difference between our ears. Another is the sound intensity difference between the ears. But such techniques only work when you are listening to the sound. Although it is possible to remember sound locations derived in such ways, if the sound has stopped other influences, particularly visual ones, can drag your attention towards something you expect caused the noise.

I've come across this 'memory of the location of a sound' problem in birding. You hear a concealed bird calling and scan the relevant area (usually vegetation) to try and see it. But if the bird calls again, many times you find you've been looking in the wrong direction entirely. Whether I just have a particularly poor memory of sound location I don't know. But I suspect with short, unexpected sounds, our memories are easily influenced by what we can see. Our visual and aural senses tend to reinforce each other. It is, for instance, a common experience that it is easier to understand what someone is saying when you can see their lips move.

Knocks and taps are quite frequently heard on ghost vigils. If such a tapping apparently comes from a solid piece of furniture, for instance, then the incident may well be seen as paranormal for the obvious reason that the item was in full view at the time and no one touched it. But what if the sound actually came from somewhere else entirely? It could have had a natural origin.

If, when you hear a sound, you look straight away at the object you think WOULD sound like that, ask yourself this - is it just expectation or did the sound REALLY come from there? It might be more convincing if you were sure the sound actually came from quite another object! At least you could not be accused then of only hearing what you expect.

17 January: Time warps feel weird!

Leaving a time warp is disorienting, in my experience. It happened recently to me after I left for a trip at 2pm. I checked the exact time with a reliable clock as I left. I needed to know because I knew the trip would probably take around 2 hours and I wanted to be back by 4pm and I was not wearing a watch.

At my destination I happened to hear a clock chime ‘three quarters’. It must be 2.45pm, I concluded, putting me cozily ahead of schedule. Around 10 minutes later I glanced at another clock, just to check. It was 3.40pm! Clearly the chime had not been "three quarters" at all but "two quarters" or half past three!

Now very late indeed, I curtailed my business and left immediately. I arrived back and looked at the reliable clock again to see just how late I actually was. It was 3.35pm! That's when I felt disorientated! It became obvious that one, and probably both, clocks I had consulted while out were wrong.

The time-line I thought I was following was all wrong and I was dragged unwillingly to a new one. If I'd never consulted any clocks during my journey it might have been better, as I am usually good at estimating time. The lesson for paranormal investigators: ask the witness how they KNOW what time it was, and check the time piece used (don't just assume it's correct), especially with reported time loss experiences!

16 January: Would Sherlock see through magic tricks?

Would a real-life Sherlock Holmes see through stage conjuring tricks? Regular readers will know I have as fascination with the fictional detective. In particular, his ability to notice things that others don't has led me to speculate that he would spot the real causes, often coincidental, of some apparently paranormal incidents.

With stage conjuring one of the main methods used is misdirection, where the audience focus on where they think a trick is happening when, in reality, the important stuff is going on elsewhere. But would Sherlock Homes be fooled by such techniques? I suspect not! The relevance to the paranormal is that we often miss what is going on right in front of us because we are looking at what attracts our attention rather than what is truly important. And this is exactly how some apparently paranormal incidents arise. We see the strange ghostly figure in the distance but fail to notice the clothes line on which the drying coat is hanging. Even if we cannot see the line, the odd behaviour of the 'figure' should give ample clues.

I'm talking about Holmes (again) not just because of the recent movie but also the new BBC TV series, which ended last night. Once again I found fascinating Holmes's ability to deduce accurate facts from tiny things that most people would never notice. If someone did this in real life it would probably be called speculation! But it is certainly true that experts in particular fields can look at a scene and pick up many more accurate facts about it than other observers. A naturalist, for instance, might look at a patch of mud in a wood and deduce what species of animal had passed by recently. A polymath, like Homes, might be able to deduce a whole host of facts about a scene that most of us would miss completely.

The lesson of Holmes to paranormal research is the most important technique you need on an investigation. Simply put, you should aim to see what is actually present at a scene, rather than what you expect (or worse, hope) to see. It is a difficult skill to cultivate but well worth the effort.

12 January: The strangest spookiness factor

Ivy covered wallWhich is the odd one out - cold, damp, dark, old? They are all 'spookiness factors' that encourage reports of ghosts and haunting phenomena. To me, the odd one out is 'old' - all the others make people feel uncomfortable and sometimes even anxious. Another spookiness factor is elevated levels of infrasound which, too, can make people feel uncomfortable.

With ghosts being traditionally associated with fear, it is easy to see why anything that makes people feel uncomfortable could be a spookiness factor. In reality, most ghost sightings are caused by misperception or hallucination. While these are not scary in themselves, they can certainly frighten witnesses. Seeing an unknown figure at the foot of your bed in the dark when you're trying to get to sleep is scary! Realising later that it was a hypnagogic experience is no comfort at the time!

But why should old buildings be considered spooky? In my experience, people are not generally uncomfortable in old buildings. Indeed, many people in the UK aspire to own an old building. And those who can't afford such luxuries still like to visit stately homes, castles and historic sites without any obvious sign of discomfort.

From cases I've been involved in, there are certainly plenty of modern buildings producing haunting reports. Even modern office blocks and brand new houses produce such reports. Ironically, many old buildings are considered haunted by locals even though there are few, if any, actual reports of haunting phenomena associated with them. Some of the places where people hold ghost vigils fall into this category!

So what's so special about being old? I think the connection is the past. Traditionally, ghosts tend to be associated with the past. And when I look at an old building, like the one in the picture, I also tend to think of the past. It's difficult not to wonder about the hundreds or thousands of people who have been there before. The association between ghosts and the past depends on the idea that ghosts are spirits, an idea for which there is no compelling evidence. However, with spookiness factors we are talking about instinctive reactions which can be easily influenced by memes such as the spirit one. And most people who believe in ghosts think they are spirits, whatever the evidence. Tradition is a powerful influence whether we like it or not.

This is only my personal idea about why oldness might be a spookiness factor. I'm sure there are many others. It's an area that's crying out for research.

10 January: Move over orbs here comes a ghost tie!

Ghost tieI can't recall any reports of ghosts wearing ties but I don't see why they shouldn't. In the photo, right, you can't see a ghost but there is definitely a ghostly tie. It is horizontal, transparent and brightly coloured with a crisscross pattern and a pointy end towards the left. It's a bit loud for my tastes!

This bizarre image, captured this year, is actually lens flare. It is caused by the low angled winter sun reflecting in the puddle at the top of the picture. As the camera was moved around, the flare moved in sympathy. Though lens flare is usually caused by a bright light source, often outside the frame, it can also be produced by reflections, as in this case.

The classic pattern for lens flare is a series of circles lining up and pointing towards the bright light source. Such circles are often mistaken for orbs. But flare can form all sorts of weird patterns, including a general glowing mist. It is little wonder that lens flare is often mistaken for paranormal phenomena and even UFOs.

Is lens flare destined to replace orbs in popularity among paranormal photos? I've noticed that the proportion of anomalous photos showing lens flare has increased markedly in recent months while the number of orb reports has declined. I hope the trend continues. Flare is colourful, diverse and vivid. By contrast, orbs are monotonous, insipid and (mostly) grey. Why would anyone prefer them to flare?

PS: Sad news about William Roll!

9 January: UFO arrives on time

White UFOThis small white UFO (photo, right) was photographed this year. Note how much crisper and brighter it appears than the cloud to the right. It appears to be reflecting the bright sunlight, framed against a pale blue winter sky. But what is it? Here is an eye witness report:

"I was out with my camera when I got a picture of a bright white UFO visible above a high wall. It moved in a curious way, performing a tight circle before drifting away. It would have been impossible for an aircraft to perform such manoeuvres."

If the object was as large as an aircraft then it would, indeed, have been performing seemingly impossible movements. The problem with UFOs is, as ever, judging size and distance. A UFO could be a small object nearby or a large one further away. Unless the object interacts with something of known distance, like clouds for instance, it is very difficult to say how far away it is.

In fact, that witness report is true but there is a lot missing! The photographer knew precisely what the object was and the clue is those pigeons perched on the top of the high stone wall. When one took off, it scattered several white feathers, of which the UFO is one.

White feather UFOIn the next picture, right, we see a very tight crop from the same photo. Now it is obvious that the object is a feather. It is not the typical 'quill' type flight feather that we are all familiar with. It is, instead, a fluffy 'down' feather. That explains how it could perform tight aerial manoeuvres. Such a feather will follow the local air currents closely, like a bit of dust. In the vicinity of solid objects, like walls, that obstruct wind flow, there are often eddies produced that explain how the air, and hence the feather, moves in a circle.

The photographer saw the whole incident, from the time when the feathers were first released into the air. But if that part of the incident had been missed, it might have appeared as if there was a strange highly maneuverable UFO present. And what if the photo was not clear enough to get a tight crop of the object, as is the case with most anomalous photos. Imagine trying to explain to a witness that you thought it was actually a feather!

It is likely that many anomalous reports are only 'inexplicable' because the observer either didn't see the start of the incident or failed to see some crucial clue to its true normal nature. It is an example of how a coincidence can be responsible for an anomalous report, the main coincidental factor involved here being how much of the incident was seen by the witness. Such trivial coincidences can be the difference between a mundane incident and a major classic paranormal report.

6 January: Ghostly orange fingers and unwanted advice

Ghostly orange fingersI know that it is only a matter of time before someone approaches me with some helpful advice when I am out with a camera. Why is it so excruciating when others think we know less than we actually do? There can be few more cringe-worthy moments than being told you are not using your camera correctly when you know precisely what you're doing. In my case, I spend a lot of time taking photos that many people would consider 'mistakes', in order to reproduce pictures reported as anomalous.

Take the photo here (right), for instance. It shows a wintry scene of bare trees against a leaden sky. But what are those bright orange 'fingers' on the left-hand side? Part of a ghostly hand reaching out towards the photographer, perhaps?

In reality, the effect is caused by reeds in the foreground, just a few centimeters from the camera. They are out of focus, being so close to the camera, which is why they are transparent. The bright orange colour comes from using flash. Cameras often use flash in daytime, for fill-in, when in 'portrait' mode. It's meant to enhance photos with people in the foreground. Often the photographer will not even notice that the flash has gone off, it being inconspicuous in daylight. In addition, the photographer is too busy concentrating on framing the shot anyway.

And before you ask, yes, the photo was deliberate! I sometimes see people taking photos that I know, from experience, will disappoint them when they get home. Taking flash photos of trees with a reed just in front of the lens would certainly qualify. But perhaps I'm being too judgmental. Maybe the photographer is trying to reproduce a paranormal photo, something I would always applaud. If you see someone doing stuff like this it might just be me. But, just in case it isn't, it would probably be best not to offer unsolicited advice!

5 January: Shadow ghost

Shadow ghostCasually glancing out of the window, I was shocked to see a shadowy figure walking quickly along the street. I could discern no features, lending the figure an ominous shadow-like look, albeit with a solid 3 dimensional appearance. The words that flashed across my mind were, perhaps unsurprisingly, shadow ghost! Many reports of shadow ghosts involve peripheral vision but this figure was in central vision!

I quickly changed my mind about identity of the figure as I had an extended view before it disappeared around a corner. I decided it was a normal, real person after all. To understand why, you need to know the context of the observation. It was early on a recent winter's morning. The street scene was poorly lit and the fast moving figure happened to take a particular path which meant it was never well-illuminated by street lamps. This was the only reason why I thought 'shadow ghost' instead of the more obvious 'commuter', which is what I suspect the figure actually was. In very low light, even central vision can produce noticeable misperception.

Context is absolutely crucial in observations like this one. If someone attempted to recreate the incident by looking from the same spot at the same time of day a few weeks later, they would see nothing weird. The reason is, of course, because at this time of year sunrise is getting earlier all the time in these latitudes. So at the same time of day it would be broad daylight just a few weeks later, with not a shadowy figure to be seen. To reproduce the same illumination, the investigator would need to be there at the same time relative to sunrise. It's actually slightly more complicated than that, due to the angle of the sun relative to the horizon, which varies through the year. But the same time interval from sunrise will do most of the time.

Recreating the original observation that prompted a paranormal report is crucial in understanding its possible causes. When it comes to shadow ghost reports, illumination is a critical factor. Most human figures resemble shadows when seen in low light. In higher levels of illumination, shadow ghosts are more likely to be seen in peripheral vision which tends to be lower resolution than central vision and monochrome. In such cases, the object giving the impression of a shadow ghost need not even be a human figure!

PS: New Scientist article featuring ASSAP now available online here.

4 January 2012: Video gaming and anomalous reports

The 'Tetris Effect' can affect enthusiastic video gamers, leading to hallucinations in the real world. Could it be a source of some anomalous reports? The Tetris Effect is named after the video game, involving moving blocks, which led some players to sometimes see bathroom tiles apparently trembling! I was alerted to this by the current issue of New Scientist which has an article on GPT or game transfer phenomenon.

We know that our brains perception mechanism has to be trained by real life experience. It is how sports players unconsciously learn to anticipate, just by practice, how an approaching ball will fly through the air, for instance. But it seems that if you play video games a lot, you may 'retrain' your brain to think that the real world works like the game! This can produce weird perceptional distortions like the Tetris Effect. The effects can be particularly noticeable during near sleep experiences or in peripheral vision.

These effects may not only make misperception more noticeable (we misperceive all the time but only rarely notice) but may have a significant influence on the content of the misperception. So someone who plays a lot of video games involving UFOs may be more likely to misperceive an unknown light in the sky as an alien spacecraft, for instance. It has already been suggested that TV and movies, as visual media, may influence the content of misperceptions. But video games, which are more immersive, may produce a stronger effect.

So, yet another thing to ask witnesses to UFOs - do you play science fiction video games a lot?

3 January 2012: New year, old UFO

Orange UFO 2012It seems to have recently become 'traditional' in the UK to mark New Year with the release of Chinese (or sky) lanterns. These objects are now said to produce more UFO reports than any other single cause. So it is difficult to take seriously any reports of orange UFOs, particular in multiple and flickering (or 'pulsating'), in the first few hours of the morning of a new year.

The photo, right, shows just such an orange UFO / sky lantern taken just minutes into 2012. It appears as a light trail because the exposure was half a second, which is very long, and the object was moving quite quickly in a stiff breeze. Note how the object looks yellow whereas to the naked eye it appeared orangey-red. This is due primarily to overexposure. The more an object is overexposed, the whiter it looks. The curiously orange night sky in the background is the result of glare from sodium street lights, exaggerated by overexposure.

The video of sky lanterns on this site (here) was made at New Year, a year ago. It is certainly a good time to look for these lanterns if you haven't seen them before. It is clearly useful for anomaly researchers to be familiar with the way these things look.

A brief search of the web has quickly produced a number of reports of 'orange UFOs' on New Year's night 2012 from around the world. So maybe the lantern thing is not just a UK New Year 'tradition'.

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

Last month's (December) website figures are an average of 7731 hits per day. Though this is down on the previous month's 9375 daily average, this is normal for holiday periods and very similar to Dec 2010.


Previous blog pages ...

  • 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