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)

26 May 2011: ASSAP @ 30 - the strange phenomenon of collective amnesia

With so many paranormal research groups forming and disbanding at breakneck speed these days, it is easy for stuff to get forgotten. One of the advantages about being around for 30 years is that we in ASSAP can take a longer term look at things. Indeed, one of the strange phenomena I've noticed in anomaly research over the years is a collective amnesia. Today's ground-breaking research or definitively evidential case quickly becomes tomorrow's hard to find snippet on the internet.

In conventional science, discoveries are made, documented, replicated and sometimes refuted. But whatever happens, scientific knowledge does not usually simply get forgotten. In paranormal research things are a a little different!

Many years ago there was a period when, with cases like the Dover ghost video and the Yorkshire poltergeist, it looked as though we might be on the verge of a major breakthrough. Here were well documented cases with apparently good evidence of paranormal phenomena. And yet now they are largely forgotten.

So why not re-examine these old cases, you may ask? Looking back at such cases today, it is too late to make a meaningful judgment about them. Important questions can no longer be answered because places have changed, witness memory was faded and the technology and investigation standards appear outdated now. It is very difficult to re-examine cases from decades, or even years, ago because certain natural causes cannot be eliminated because the relevant evidence was not gathered at the time. Who was standing where? What did they see? What did they miss?

For these reasons, perhaps it's not so bad that we have collective amnesia. If we spent all our time re-examining old cases, however promising, the results would always remain frustratingly inconclusive. It is far better, instead, to develop higher investigation standards and equipment so that we are ready for the next big case. And we should plan to consult widely WHILE a case is ongoing, so that all the right questions get asked at a time, when they can still be answered. It is no use trying to eliminate a possible natural cause if someone only suggests it for the first time years after the event.

Why IS there a collective amnesia in paranormal research? One factor is a remarkable reluctance by many people in the field to document and publish their cases. It is all very well claiming you were involved in a fantastic case that showed dramatic evidence of the paranormal but if there is no record of it, why should anyone take any notice? If the evidence can't be examined by others then it is little more than a nice story.

But I think the most important factor in collective amnesia is that, unlike in conventional science, there is no obvious forward progression of discoveries. In everyday science, one discovery leads to a theory which, in turn, leads to further discoveries. Knowledge is gradually accumulated to form a coherent description of a particular natural phenomenon. By contrast, in paranormal research the search is simply for evidence that something out of the ordinary has happened. And many of the theories produced in the field are either not testable or contradict other well-documented scientific knowledge. Such theories gain few supporters.

This may be how the idea of studying the xenonormal has come about. Instead of building exotic theories on the shifting sands of controversial evidence and untestable hypotheses, the xenonormal is concerned with known, well-established phenomena that just happen to resemble the paranormal. It allows information to be built in a conventional scientific way, using discoveries from other fields, producing a body of information that helps future researchers test their evidence for natural causes at the time when they are actually investigating.

This in itself is a form of collective amnesia. Paranormal investigators are researching cases without the knowledge of natural causes found in previous similar cases because the information was never published. It means that mistakes are repeated again and again, wasting everyone's time. A body of xenonormal knowledge can help fix this problem.

25 May 2011: ASSAP @ 30 - then and now

In just over two weeks, ASSAP will be 30 years old. In a field where most paranormal research groups are nearer to 30 months old, it's an achievement! So how have things changed on the anomalous phenomena scene in thirty years?

Firstly, 'anomalous phenomena' was quite a new term when we started. It would be nice to think we helped put it on the map. In the 1980s, people were generally either ufologists or forteans or psychical researchers etc. Few people crossed the subject boundaries, even though it is quite normal now. Many even doubted that there was any connection between, say, ghosts and UFOs then. Nowadays the connection is obvious - sightings of both could be caused by misperception. More than that, many people who have seen UFOs also report various psychic experiences. Many people are nowadays interested in the whole range of 'weird phenomena' rather than specialising in one.

Some subjects have declined in popularity since the 1980s, an important example being ufology. In contrast, the opposite has happened with ghost research. It will seem odd to current ghost researchers to think that when ASSAP started it was one of only a handful of societies actively researching the subject in the UK at the time.

So why has ghost research flourished while ufology was dwindled? I think the answer lies in the possibility of actually experiencing something strange for yourself. You can stare at the sky for weeks and see nothing weird. Unless you are in just the right place at the right time you will never see a UFO. On the other hand, ghosts are repeatedly reported from particular locations. So at least you know you are in the right place! Even so, your chances of seeing a ghost are still slim. Even in a highly active haunting, something weird might only be reported once every few weeks. So the chances of you turning up at the right time is low. However, this doesn't concern modern ghost hunters who use assumption-led methods. Using such techniques you can easily get 'positive' (usually 'false positive') results almost anywhere, any time, whether the location is haunted or not.

ASSAP has always been particularly active in ghost research, despite trying to cover a wide range of subjects. This is simply because of demand by members. Even before the 'ghost hunting boom', many more people wanted to research hauntings than any other anomalous phenomenon. There is something tantalising about sitting in a ghost vigil hoping that maybe, just maybe, you'll get lucky just once and see a ghost. And sometimes people do but, as we've found, it's extremely rare.

PS: There are now more details available about the ASSAP 30th Anniversary conference, Seriously Strange. See here for full info.

24 May 2011: The loneliness of the long distance shoe

Walking along a street near where I live the other day I noticed a lone shoe by the path. Regular readers will guess what I thought of it straight away. But let's imagine how others might react.

Firstly, I suspect the majority of people would not even notice a lone shoe beside a path. They have busy lives and plenty of other things to think about and attention is precious. A small group of passers-by WILL notice the shoe but pay it no attention whatever. It is, after all, of no relevance to them or their lives. An even smaller group will notice the shoe and perhaps speculate as to how it came to be there.

You see many things besides paths but they tend to be predictable. They will mostly be bits of wrapping or bags, though I did once see a fire extinguisher! One thing you don't expect are single shoes. It makes you wonder how someone could lose a single shoe and where the other one might be. I should mention that the shoe looked undamaged so it is unlikely that it was simply discarded. One possibility is kids playing a joke on each other. After that, the possible scenarios tend to get steadily more and more exotic and strange. It could even involve the paranormal - maybe the shoe is an apport!

So what is my theory? I think someone left it outside their house for some reason and a fox took a liking to it! My reason for this exotic theory is that I've noticed single shoes appearing around our neighbourhood before. I suspected it was foxes moving them for a long time and eventually I actually saw the culprit in action! A news story from Germany tends to back up the idea too.

Of course, it might not be foxes. What the incident DOES demonstrate is that there are many more possibilities to consider before we decide a weird incident is paranormal in origin. And some of the possibilities can be pretty unlikely!

21 May 2011: Free tickets, flying rods and familiar faces!

First of all, if you're an ASSAP member you can get FREE tickets to the Seriously Strange conference in Bath on 10-11 September. Yes, you didn't misread that, it said free! However, there are only a limited number of free tickets available on a first come, first served basis. So apply quickly or you'll have to pay. Go here to apply online NOW!

One thing that constantly surprises me is that when people object to 'natural causes' for things like orbs or flying rods, they rarely actually try to reproduce the phenomena naturally themselves. If they did, perhaps they'd realise just how easy it is to reproduce these phenomena.

So today, a lovely sunny warm day here in the UK, I decided to try to video some flying rods. Though I've done it before, I wanted to see what the best 'recipe' is for producing flying rods. So when I meet someone who says they are not blurred insects I can suggest a method they can try for themselves (even though I doubt they'll try it).

So far my recommendations for producing your own flying rods would be:

  • find a flock of fast flying insects - near water for instance
  • video them against a dark background to force your video to select a slow shutter speed
  • try to get the insects well-lit - in sunlight for instance
  • make sure the insects are in focus otherwise they will appears as orbs!

Using that formula, I got some reasonable flying rods. Incidentally, when you get a flock of flying rods it is quite obvious they are really insects. It's just too difficult to imagine these creatures being able to manoeuvre so quickly if they really were so long-bodied! It might explain why most flying rod videos on the web show just single objects!

Finally, on the way to video the insects I noticed a woman as I surveyed a crowd of people out enjoying the sun. I was instantly aware that I recognised her face though I couldn't put a name to it. I looked back and, to my amazement, the woman was no longer familiar when I looked at her properly. She was a total stranger! Further, I realised the faced I 'recognised' was actually that of an actress I'd seen on TV, not someone I knew personally!

It was, of course, an example of a misperception. Looking back, I'm sure I've done this before. Indeed, I guess most people have had this experience though without realising it was a misperception. It could explain why, when there is a police hunt for someone, there are so many incorrect sightings! Is there no end to the tricks misperception is responsible for?

18 May 2011: Everyone else is biased except me!

In an article in this week's New Scientist, research shows that we are all biased in our opinions. This is not surprising. However, it appears that we are all blind to our own bias while we can see everyone else's. That probably explains how people can be remarkably confident when expounding arguments that have little logic or evidence in their favour.

So, logically, the only way to discover your own biases is to ask someone else, or at least gauge their reactions, about your own thoughts and ideas. For instance, I like to think of my attitude towards the paranormal as 'neutral scientific'. In other words, I rule nothing in or out to start with and just see where the science takes us.

I discuss the paranormal mostly on web forums and through emails. I tend to end up arguing against both 'believers' and 'skeptics' which is evidence, albeit unscientific, that I really AM neutral. Few people in the paranormal community have a neutral position on the subject and many find mine a bit odd.

As for the media, they don't understand 'neutral' at all. For them, the paranormal is about 'believers versus skeptics'. Bringing the two together is good for a lively discussion. Interestingly, when the media get in contact with paranormal researchers they rarely what their 'position' is. I guess media researchers try to identify it beforehand, maybe by looking at the web or by talking to someone else in 'the community'. They often, and in the case of neutrals always, get it wrong.

Of course, I am probably deluded in thinking I have a truly neutral stance. It's why I stick mostly to xenonormal research. By looking at natural phenomena that resemble the paranormal, I do not stray into the area of making claims either way about weird phenomena. Far from being a cop out, I think both 'sides' of our community would benefit from this approach. To find the paranormal you must first eliminate the normal. To do that convincingly you need to understand the relevant 'normal' explanations you are supposedly eliminating.

As I've mentioned before (as recently as yesterday), I find it bizarre that so many people accept that orbs are 'normal' but don't realise the crucial fact that they are out of focus (which explains why they are circular)! It is a perfect example of being right but for the wrong reasons. How many cases are there where people are wrong for the wrong reasons and do not even realise? We need to understand the xenonormal really well if we are to make confident pronouncements about whether a case has a paranormal or normal explanation.

PS: I hope everyone realises the post title is ironic!

16 May 2011: Old anomalies never quite fade away

It is said that if you watch an astronaut falling into a black hole, they get closer and closer but never quite disappear (see here). For the astronaut themselves, their gruesome fate is much quicker and quite certain. Anomalous phenomena can be like that unfortunate astronaut. If an anomaly has been successfully explained as a natural phenomenon most people accept it and move on. But there will always be a small group of people who will continue to see the explained phenomenon as an anomaly forever.

A good example of this would be orbs. Though orbs have been satisfactorily explained as a photographic artifact, there are still some people who continue to believe they are paranormal. The reasons for this are instructive to paranormal researchers.

A primary reason is that, when people study anomalous phenomenon they are, quite naturally, interested in things that defy normal explanation. So they will always look for exceptions to general rules. Even if the general principle of orbs are satisfactory explained, some people will still look for examples that appear to defy the rules. This is why we have put together a special orb FAQ that examines all the known 'exceptions' to the orb zone theory and shows that, in fact, they are not anomalies at all. This page tends to get longer and longer over time as more 'exceptions' are 'discovered' (more bits were added to this page this week!). It is in the nature of anomaly research to look for such exceptions, so this is likely to be a never-ending task.

Another reason for this phenomenon is the way information spreads around. For someone with no active interest in the paranormal, if they get an orb in their photo they may well think it is anomalous. Those who do not take an active interest in the paranormal often get information from opinions circulating in the general population which tend towards general belief in all apparently paranormal phenomena.

But there are also many ghost hunting groups who publish photos of orbs as paranormal evidence. They may well be familiar with natural explanations for orbs. However, the problem here is that natural explanations circulating among the paranormal community are generally wrong or incomplete. So ghost hunters can easily find exceptions to these inaccurate explanations in their own photos. For instance, many people think that orbs are simply caused by the proximity of the flash to the camera lens. While this is true, it also applied to compact film cameras which hardly ever showed orbs. The crucial fact missing from this explanation is that orbs are OUT OF FOCUS highlights! This vital fact explains why orbs are circular (or sometimes other shapes) and why they suddenly became common with the advent of digital cameras.

There will ALWAYS be a few paranormal investigators who think orbs (or some of them) are paranormal. Among the general population there will ALWAYS be a large proportion who think orbs are paranormal. The problem is one of wrong information in circulation. There is little we can do about this except to be a source of accurate information and to try to spread it as widely as possible.

14 May 2011: Who hasn't seen a ghost?

Ask around among your friends and the chances are that all, or certainly most, will have at least one ghost story to tell from their own experience. While these stories make great anecdotes, just how accurate are they?

Forgetting ghosts and other weird stuff, do you have any cherished memories of the favourite times in your life? You'd be unusual if you didn't. But how accurate are those memories? Travelling back to the scene of favourite times in your own life, like revisiting a college or somewhere you went on a happy holiday, can be a shock. Often you realise that things do not look like your memories at all, even after accounting for buildings that have actually been altered or demolished. You might realise, for instance, that you could not possibly have seen a hill from your favourite city park because there is a large old building in the way. You have probably 'edited' together two memories together and created a 'new' one.

Reading old diaries can be similarly unsettling. Indeed, research shows that our memories do change significantly over time. We revise them without even being aware of it. In fact, people will swear that their memory of an incident from decades ago is 100% accurate, even though it can be demonstrated to be factually incorrect. Memories can even be altered by photos and other people's stories about the same incident! The truth is that some, probably most, of your cherished memories are inaccurate at best and downright wrong at worst. Don't worry, though, it's the same for (almost) everyone.

This applies as much to ghost anecdotes as any other memories. So when someone hears I am interested in ghosts and tells me their own anecdote, I listen politely and with interest. However, I hardly ever want to investigate such an old ghost story. Firstly, the scene of the incident, which can tell you a lot, will have changed. Secondly, the witness's memory is likely to be rather inaccurate. While it might make a great anecdote to tell at parties, it is unlikely to be useful evidence of anything paranormal. For that, we need recent accounts and the ability to investigate the scene of the incident as soon as possible after the event.

11 May 2011: I can't remember seeing any legs when it was moving, perhaps it floated!

The other evening I casually glanced out of a window at the gathering gloom and saw something odd. Like most other people, I know every detail of what is normally visible from my windows (or think I do) so I notice straight away if anything is different. I could make out an unfamiliar object, long thin and shapeless, lying by the side of the road but it was too dark to say what it was. My best guess was that it was some sort of large bag, possibly rubbish blown there by the wind. I looked hard at it several times, deliberately turning away in between, just in case it was a misperception, but the amorphous shape remained stubbornly visible and stationary. It was really there!

Intrigued, I used binoculars to get a better look. The mystery object was a fox, lying (not sitting) sphinx-like, just staring along the road! I think it noticed me because it stared directly at me several times. Even though I was a long way off, it may have picked up the glint of my binoculars reflecting the already lit street lights. Amazingly, the fox remained where it was even when people passed by just a few metres away. They clearly didn't notice the animal which was watching them intently. Finally, as if bored with watching the world go by, the fox stood up and trotted off. I've never seen a fox behave like that before, so at ease that it felt able to lie down with humans passing just metres away. Perhaps it realised that, in the low light, the passers-by would never notice it.

Here's how someone else, who didn't have binoculars, COULD have written up this same incident.

"I saw this long, thin thing lying on the road not moving. I thought at first it might be a bit of rubbish. I knew it couldn't be an animal because it didn't move at all, even when people walked nearby. Also, the shape didn't match any animal we get round here. Then suddenly it was moving quickly, before vanishing out of sight behind a fence. I can't remember seeing any legs when it was moving, perhaps it floated! "

From that version you might conclude it was a mystery animal or maybe the ghost of one! Witness reports can sound dramatically paranormal and unambiguous but the original events may not be so clear cut. I always try to put myself in the position of the witness and try to work out what they saw. Incidents like this one with the fox help me to understand how reports of mundane incidents can be misinterpreted quite easily.

9 May 2011: Ghosts out of the blue!

Yet again, I have to thank the current issue of New Scientist for something interesting things to discuss. Firstly, there is an article about why we remember some dreams and not others. It seems we do it for the same reasons we remember wakeful experiences. Experiences (or dreams) that are emotionally charged are remembered more than others. I guess this is a case of learning by mistakes! You don't forget it when you get something wrong because it causes a lot of emotional pain! The interesting point is that the brain processes for remembering are exactly the same whether you are awake or asleep. It appears more and more as though sleep and wakefulness are not discrete states but a continuum, sharing many common features. That's probably why near sleep experiences appear so real. As far as our brains are concerned, they ARE real!

The influence of blue light on circadian rhythms is the subject of another article in the same issue. We have, in our eyes, some cells sensitive to light (particularly blue light) that are NOT connected to our visual cortex. That means we don't use them to see anything. Instead, they are used to decide whether it is night or day and when we should go to sleep. In darkness, or at least the absence of blue light, more melatonin is produced in our brains, making us sleepy and less alert.

This is clearly of interest for those running ghost vigils in the dark. I freely admit that I've fallen asleep on occasion in such circumstances. Such brief snatches of sleep during a vigil can distort your sense of time as well as causing you to miss interesting stuff! Furthermore, without light to keep you alert, you will spend more time 'nearly asleep', which could prompt near sleep experiences that might easily be mistaken for the paranormal.

If you wanted to deliberately design a way of making people misperceive paranormal phenomena and have near sleep experiences, you would definitely go for a ghost vigil in the dark. If, on the other hand, you are interested in recording possible real paranormal experiences, you would definitely keep the lights on!

6 May 2011: Ghosts - exceptions that prove the rule

In my previous blog entry (3 May) I explained how people 'recognised' things like a ghost, UFO or lake monster, despite never having seen one before. They knew what one looked like because they'd seen fictional representations of them in movies, TV shows, video games and so on. When investigated, many such reports turn out to be misperceptions of mundane objects. As explained in the previous blog post, the misperceived objects are visually substituted in our brains with archetypical visual memories based solely on fictional representations.

This is quite obvious with many UFO reports where, for instance, people might misperceive a distant balloon as an alien spacecraft, complete with portals and landing gear, straight out of a science fiction movie! Something similar happens with lake monster reports where an otter creating an unusual wake is seen as a series of humps, just like classic Loch Ness Monster models.

But what about ghosts? The ghost of fiction is often transparent and talks to the witness. Most real ghost reports are quite different (see here). The vast majority of ghosts are described as looking perfectly solid and normal looking. So is this an exception to the idea that we misperceive fictional images of anomalous phenomena?

In fact , there ARE some reports of transparent ghosts but they only form a tiny minority and are probably mostly near sleep experiences which derive from dream states which can include almost anything. So why are the vast majority of real ghost reports quite unlike their fictional representation? Firstly, most objects misperceived as human figures are solid, so they will not be misperceived as transparent. Secondly, we should ask why do witnesses seeing perfectly normal-looking human figures think they are actually seeing a ghost? The answer is that the human figure, although normal-looking, is 'wrong' in some way. For instance, they may be seen in a place where they should not be, like in a locked room for instance. Or they may do something impossible, like vanishing. Or they might be in historical costume.

Many witnesses to ghost sightings say they only become aware they've seen a ghost AFTER the experience, when they realise there was something wrong. By contrast, with lake monsters and UFOs, and indeed with transparent ghosts, witnesses are aware at the time that they are seeing something anomalous. This is a crucial difference because, with a misperception, our brain substitutes in a visual representation from memory of whatever IT thinks we are seeing. So whether the brain thinks it is seeing an anomalous phenomenon or not AT THE TIME is crucial to what the witness ends up seeing.*

Most reports of anomalous phenomena come from misperception - seeing something as something else, like a tree as a ghostly figure. One of the features of misperception is that it can be quite easily 'broken', by seeing the misperceived object better, for instance. This causes the misperception to vanish, leaving only the misperceived object in its place. This explains why many ghost reports involve human figures vanishing (see here).

To summarise and hopefully clarify:

  • most reports of anomalous phenomena are caused by misperception involving visual substitution
  • the visual substitute will vary depending on what the brain decides it is looking at
  • if the brain decides it is looking at an anomaly it will substitute in a (usually) fictional representation from memory
  • if the brain decides it is looking at something normal, like a human figure, it will substitute in a real representation from memory
  • a misperceived object must at least vaguely resemble what it is misperceived to be
  • there are many more objects in everyday life that vaguely resemble ordinary human figures than transparent ones

Thus, most ghosts appear as normal human figures. By contrast, there are few things in everyday life that resemble lake monsters or alien spacecraft. So the few things that DO resemble these anomalies are always likely to be misperceived by witnesses as such. So ghosts are the exception that proves the rule!

And now there is yet another valuable question for investigators to ask - when were you first aware you were seeing something weird or unusual? If you suspect misperception, the answer could be highly revealing.

* This explains why multiple witnesses to the same anomaly often report seeing different things!

3 May 2011: Early memory

There's an interesting article in this week's New Scientist about childhood amnesia. People cannot recall anything from the earliest few years of their childhood. Various factors are considered to explain this in the article but the most important is likely to be vocabulary! Put simply, if you don't yet have the vocabulary to describe what makes a particular object distinct from other objects, you are unlikely to recall the object itself. In later life, as your vocabulary expands and you can describe objects in more detail, you start to remember them and incidents involving them.

We hold a sort of library of objects in our memory, so that we can recognise them automatically (before we are even consciously aware of them) when we see them. This appears to be a generalised representation. For instance, we don't hold a visual memory of every table we've ever seen. Firstly, this would make recognising an object very slow, as you'd have to compare it with hundreds of examples. Secondly, unless the table being viewed was identical to, or very similar to, an example from memory, your brain might decide it is not seeing a table after all. Instead we hold an impression of what makes a table distinct from any other object. It is now clear that the words required to describe what makes an object distinct are important to forming this generalised representation and so to recalling it. I guess if it was not possible to say 'a table is an inanimate object with legs which supports a horizontal surface', we might indeed have to remember every single example we'd ever seen in order to recognise a new one. These generalised representations in memory are usually connected with a word, such as 'table', though there may be objects we recall which we do not know the proper term for but can still describe. These labels allow you describe a scene you've never seen before without conscious effort, such as 'I see a table and chair in a room'.

This raises an interesting point when it comes to anomalous phenomena. The only ghost, UFO or lake monster that most people are ever likely to encounter in their lives these days is going to be a fictional one, probably in a movie, TV programme or video game. Obviously, even a child generally knows, consciously at least, the difference between a fictional memory and a real one. However, such fictional representations of these objects may be the only ones that we hold in our 'library' in memory.

If you see something you don't immediately recognise, your brain may tell you that it is a ghost, UFO, lake monster or some other anomaly. But how does it know this? Most likely it will be because it resembles some fictional representations you've seen on TV. And if the object is poorly seen, your brain may visually substitute in the archetypal lake monster in your visual memory (derived from fictional sources) for the real object. This would explain why people are totally convinced they've seen a flying saucer when it can be easily demonstrated that they saw Venus through a mist, for instance. It also shows how culture feeds back into real anomaly reports.

Memory is a fascinating subject! I think anyone hoping to make any sense of paranormal reports really needs to get some basic understanding of how it, and perception (to which it is closely linked), work. Here's a thought! If no one had ever linked unknown objects seen in the sky to alien spacecraft, what would we think UFOs are?

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

Last month's (April) website figures are an average of 8745 hits per day. This is slightly down on the previous month's 9036 daily average.


Previous blog pages ...

  • 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 2011