Let's Play 20 (utterly inane) Questions.

Questions, questions questions. One thing that really gets me down about being a member of several paranormal groups is the multitude of inane questions asked in memes shared from site to site. I've never even been tempted to attempt to answer so much as one of them. Today I'll answer the first twenty from one particular page. Share my pain.

1. Ignoring your terrible grammar. No I would immediately request the concierge exchanged my room as this one is clearly double booked. I would then collect my belongings and wish her well with her beauty pageant. I may also suggest she moisturize.













2. Astro projection? Is that when you launch a futuristic dog in some way? No I do not believe in that, not at all, it sounds cruel. I think its impossible though, like the similarly named ASTRAL projection which is a load of bollocks frankly.

3. Yes. Or I would find the prefix "imaginary" to be quite dismissive. Play acting and the creation of an imaginary friend can be important to social development in a child. You should remind yourself of this the next time you consult a priest (or Rhys "teenage demon slayer/exorcist/actor" Bryne via skype) because Sally is having a tea party alone with cups for two. Don't punish your child for having more imagination than you do.

4. Dunno. Does it have Wi-Fi?

5. See my answer to 4.

6. Em no I'm not. For the same reason I'm not prepared to give birth to a yeti the next time I get a stomach cramp. Because A) I have no reason to believe either Yetis or demons exist. B) If even I did, I would still have no reason to believe that they are the causes of said complaints.

That said, thanks for spreading dangerous nonsense. Severe dizziness when standing can be a result of a variety of medical complaints, some serious. By inciting people to seek demonologists instead of doctors, you're encouraging them to gamble with their health based upon....nothing.

So I guess my final answer is: Fuck You!

7. No, I had a mouse once. It died when a bookcase fell on it. True story.

8. A KEY. Do you get it? An item you can enter with. I wish they were all like this.

Seriously though, there were 72 responses to this on the site I pulled it from. 72!

Not even halfway though yet. Going to try and speed this up.

9. No. See mouse.

10.Yes. Can I take a book? Not a deal breaker....


















                      11. Frankly, shit my pants.

   12. No. Even if by "other side" you mean the           wall behind the mirror. That would be a door that does that.

13. I didn't know that! I'd love to meet these "experts" though... or read their peer reviewed papers... or even see some of their research... but they don't actually exist do they.

14. *sigh* see 11. Frankly I feel like that after 14 of these questions. I would not be surprised to see that in the mirror right now.

15. In all honesty, the first word I saw was "NORMAL". The irony that I saw "NORMAL" where others were seeing "PARANORMAL" was not lost on me.

16. See 11 & 14.

17. I'd be the non-existent kind. Also I don't see bum or nose ghosts on that list. Outrageous!

18. Then it doesn't matter does it. We are all on a level footing. Plus I just ate a scotch egg, now I'm not an "expert" but I'm pretty sure ghosts don't eat scotch eggs or any other form of egg-based savory snacks.

19. I literally have no idea. I've never turned around to see one duck behind a tree, or attempt to act casually, so I'm going to say no.















And finally....

20. No.No I can't.

A quick note to everyone who has shown support over the past few days.

As you can probably guess, the last post was not my final one. I'm sure that a few people are going to be a little disappointed that I wrote that post and didn't actually quit. In fact I've done a complete u-turn in a relatively short space of time. I now fully intend to carry on under my real name.

The reason for this u-turn is pretty simple, in science and skepticism we are always told, you adjust your position on the basis of new evidence. I was completely taken a back by how many people seemed to care whether this blog continued or not. Put into perspective, the internet didn't come to a complete shut down, there wasn't panic on the streets, but a few people, many who I respect greatly mentioned this. Seemed saddened even.

One thing I could say is that I did state that post was the last time I would write as "skeptic's boot",technically that's true.

And I had to question.... Is this really worth walking away? I'm not an overly sensitive person, And I'm not prone to making spur of the moment decisions, but I can't admit when I've made a mistake.

Apologies. And most of all thanks.

And if anyone slags me off for flip-flopping in the comments, I quit again.

Just kidding.

-Rob

Before it was news... it was still bullshit.

On the last post I covered a viral monster story/that just, won't die. No matter how frequently its debunked and refuted the "creature on the deer cam" tale just keeps resurfacing on social media. I've got experience of this.

In April last year I wrote a piece about an alleged demon/alien/whatever crouching over the bed of a supposedly dying patient in a hospital. The debunking was pretty complete, and I can't take credit for this, user Mick West on metabunk designed the picture that should have put pay to this. In fact its so good I'm going to show again here And he wasn't alone. There have been multiple debunking of this. Yet it keeps coming back.

Its not alone: the "fairy/gnome running through the kitchen as the child plays", the"possessed" woman attacks a train passenger, something I also tackled in a previous blog, the "ghost/angel at the scene of a car wreck supposedly photographed by a paramedic at the site. The list goes on.

These stories, and many more like them are the repeat offenders. They just keep coming back.  What keeps these stories in the public eye?

The common thread is these are all featured stories on hub of all bullshit Before its News. My normal practice here would be to link you to the site, maybe even the individual stories themselves. I am to providing sources what Meghan Trainor is to bass, I'm all about it.


But in this case, I'm not going to link you to Before its News. I don't want you to go there. I don't want you to give them hits, I don't want to help you help them improve their Google ranking and I certainly don't want you to help them generate ad revenue.

Founded in 2008 as an open news source that virtually anyone could write for, it soon became over run with conspiracy theorists, doomsday prophets and bloggers linking back to their own sites (bloody bloggers, scum of the Earth!) and of course paranormal bullshit.

The principle Before it News seems to operate on is an attention grabbing headline, by-line or picture enticing the reader to follow a link to its site. What you actually read when you get there matters very little. Being generous, its a level above click-bait. Unfortunately many in the paranormal community really don't care about content. If something is easy to share and seemingly confirms their belief, they'll share away.

Fortunately many pages and groups on facebook are getting the idea about Before its News, carrying warnings that those who link to its site will have the link removed and even face being blocked. Facebook too seem to be coming around to the idea that sites like this should be dealt with. Progress is slow though.

In August 2014 Facebook pledged to introduce measures to reduce the amount of links to sites such as this in users news feeds. Unfortunately Before its news seems to be escaping this measure at the moment. Facebook announced today further action to reduce the spreading of hoax stories and click bait. Could this be the change that spells disaster for Before its news on social media? From early indications this will all be down to users actively reporting such posts, are "believers" the main users of paranormal sites actually going to report a site that panders to their beliefs?

Even if Before its news does fall prey to these measures, there's already a heir to the bullshit crown. And there's more to this site than just advertising revenue, there's ego and the desire to become a paranormal personality....

More next time.

Sometimes They Come Back: Viral hoaxes never die!

I sure that most of you who frequent social media, and in particular  paranormal sites, have seen this image by now. Its been circulating since at least 2010 and like a horror creation of old, it just won't die.

Now clearly this is a hoax. But its a great example of how difficult it can be to get to the bottom of what should be a by the numbers debunking. The image has been shared so often with so many different iterations that a simply Google search won't lead you to the original source. Many major news outlets picked up on the image, its been linked to the online horror site Creepypasta as the rake and even linked to an online viral marketing campaign of a computer game. 

So what is the truth about this image? What is its origin? And is there anyway of conclusively showing it to be fake?

The ever reliable Daily Fail *ahem* Mail... that should read Mail.... reported on our woodland creature giving the back story. Its difficult to pinpoint exactly when the story was published. It states updated 13/10/10 but it must of been publish prior to this as the article referenced beneath this makes reference to the piece and that was published on 10/12/10. 

"The hunter said he was lying in wait in the pitch black when a ghoulish spectre filled his sights.Its eyes glowing in the light of his torch, it leapt from the undergrowth and flashed a look at the camera before vanishing back into the bushes.
The hunter, who has chosen to remain anonymous, was so frightened he said he broke the camera but retrieved the image from its undamaged memory chip.
The picture was taken on a reserve in Berwick near Morgan City, Louisiana."

They go on to claim that the image and story could be promotional material for the Amazing Spider Man released just under two years later! 

"....Conspiracy theorists will no doubt note the similarity between the figure's crouching pose and that used by Spider-Man, whose latest big-screen adventure has just begun shooting..."

Clearly journalists at the Mail aren't as familiar with the Spider Man comics as I am, few are, I'm a geek. I don't remember any iteration that liked to hang around in the woods scaring hunters!

Further searching found an earlier piece (10/12/10) reporting on a video games show and the promotional material for upcoming release Resistance 3, which featured our image and the same story given by the Mail.

Hearing that a computer game company claimed responsibility for the image was pretty conclusive to me:

"Announced during this year’s gamescom conference, Resistance 3 stole the show, with a stunning live action trailer hinting at the game’s content.... in in true Insomniac Games style, the developer has ramped up their viral marketing machine by releasing a scary image of a Grim in the wild, baffling media outlets. 

An apparent deer hunter in Berwick near Morgan City, Louisiana posted the creepy picture on the Wildgame Innovations website , claiming he was lying in wait in the pitch black when the strange creature appeared. He was so frightened that his camera broke, (whuh...how does that happen?- SB) but he managed to retreive the image from its undamaged memory chip..."

Grim from Resistance 3

Insomniac Games made this statement via Twitter:
"Whoops… looks like one got out. If you see a Grim on the loose… please return to Insomniac Games, Burbank, CA: http://bit.ly/fqGoXX"
The image certainly bares more than a passing resemblance to the enemy in the game, although it lacks the extra eyes. Could Insomniac be behind the image, or were they just exploiting media attention?


On December 3rd the image was posted to an Archery forum, by a user named "Hillbilly Willi" who had joined the forum over a year earlier and made 18 posts up to that point.

            It reads: 

"Don't know what to think about this one fellers.... Went and checked my camera today and this is what it had on it.... The ground directly in front of my tree was completely tore up, the trail cam had been torn off the tree, straps were popped and everything. Camera was laying face down about 10 ft. from the tree it was attached too. Bark was knocked off the tree where the camera had been, like something had knocked it off while trying to twist camera off the tree. This was the only picture I got of "it" as I had it set on a 2 minute timer. The first picture is of "it", and the second is a picture from a lil while ago of the same spot, just for reference. Checking this right at dusk with a 3/4 mile walk out ahead of you will scare a feller..... When I saw it, my blood ran cold. Still gives me shivers.... What do you guys think?? "

Notice here the story is somewhat different. Billi claims he found the camera damaged in the morning and the creature was never sighted by him directly. Also he doesn't break his camera in fear.

Now if Billi is the original hoaxer, he makes a mistake on this thread which may be his undoing. He posts another picture from the camera.  This time of a dear taken by the same camera and in the same location only 9 days earlier.

Take look at both.

 If this is nine days earlier, wouldn't one expect there to be some changes to the landscape nine days later? Also being at different times of day (creature 1:44 am *clearer on picture with thread quote* compared to 05:27 deer) shouldn't the lighting conditions by somewhat different? In both cases the conditions seem exactly the same. Almost as if this is the same photo or part of the same sequence of photos with the time and date stamp altered. In fact the only difference seem to be the pixel difference in  the "creature" photograph, which is clearly less than the deer photograph judging by their relative clarity.

Another interesting thing to note: On the deer picture there is considerable motion blur around the deer, implying that the camera taking has a slow shutter speed. If this is the case why is there no corresponding blur around the creature? If it isn't moving shouldn't Billi have more photos of it, as it moves into frame and towards the camera?



So that's speculation, the vague black halo around the creature's head opposite is a telltale sign of manipulation in an image suite such as photoshop.

Notice there is no such halo around the image of the deer.

 Running the image of the creature through an examination with Jpegsnoop shows direct evidence of tampering. 

So it maybe lost to the annals of time exactly who perpetrated this hoax but the fact that it is a hoax is pretty undeniable. It may seem pretty fruitless to debunk an image that has been around so long, but experience should tell us that these images, like the monsters they claim to represent, never quite die.  

The Dos and Dolts... Ghost hunting rules. by morons, for morons.

A lot of people are asking where Matador productions got the inspiration for their ill-judged naked ghost hunting show. The answer boggles the mind.

In my last blog I asked Chrissy Glickman of Matador productions for some sources to back up the hypothesis that spirits are more eager to communicate with the naked. Chrissy e-mailed back stating that naked spirit communication goes all the way back to the Romans, her source: The Untold Rules Of Real Ghost Hunting by Haunted America Tours. The basis for this seems to be a brief mention of the Romans unsupported by any credible source from rule 3 which actually states one SHOULD NOT ghost hunt naked (or you should at least inform your fellow investigators that you intend to do so! I should think so too!), the logic behind this whole nonsense being "ghosts are naked, you should be naked too"! Matador are basing the premise of a TV show on this utter rubbish! (since writing this a representative from Matador has pointed out this was not their only source just an example. It is the only source they have provided me. I apologise if there has been any misunderstanding.):

I've got to thank Chrissy actually, because the site she has linked me too is possibly the most moronic and borderline misogynistic tripe I've ever had the displeasure to read. Many sites have rules by which their representatives should follow. As I've covered before these rules range from the sensible to the blatantly obvious to the painfully silly, but even these rules pale in comparison to this set. The author seems obsessed with sex, genitals and reproductive processes.  I reproduce an abridged version here, I'm calling it:

Ghost hunting rules for morons... By morons.

General Rules.

Don't bring fireworks or pit bulls? You have to wonder who exactly this group are getting along to their "investigations" if they have to be told that weapon dogs and explosives are contraband! Also no drugs is good policy, but who is taking crack then going ghost-hunting? The author also thinks that medications should come with a warning "not to operate ghost hunting equipment". I think they should check the back of their medication for a statement saying "Do not write ghost hunting do's and don't s".

The "no-boner" rule is going to be pretty hard to enforce though.

Up next there are individual rules for women and men... didn't you know? Lisa does. Ladies first.

Rules for women.

Here are some gems that stand out these are women we are talking about so what's up first?:

Shoes of course! You ladies and your shoes! Tut! But seriously, what makes this extra insulting is this piece was actually wrote by a woman! I also presume that as this is only under the ladies rules, men can turn up in what ever ridiculous footwear they like.

Again, not quite sure why this just applies to women. Upon reading warnings that ghosts can haunt underwear, and that farting investigators are prone to "anal possession" I did have to double check that this isn't a parody site. Unfortunately it seems like they are deadly serious. What an insult though, to die and find you've been designated an "anal ghost".

Apparently "there is nothing worse than a real ghost digging around in your drawers when you are hunting for ghosts" surely that would actually be a plus. You've found your ghost at least, and it may well be confined.

I find this section particularly offensive. It strikes me as little more than declaring women at certain stages of their menstrual cycle as "unclean". I assume the author (Lisa: a woman) means actually menstruating, as the menstrual cycle is defined as running from the start of one period to the day before the next, aren't most woman pre-menopause always on their menstrual cycle? I find worrying that a, presumably, grown woman doesn't know what the menstrual cycle is.

Now we have vaginal ghosts. Is there any area of the body that doesn't have its own unique spook?

Also: "Vaginal or womb ghosts are said to prey on woman with these pre existing conditions."

Really? Who says this? You? The morons that make up your group? Perhaps the pit bulls they bring to investigations? As the article goes on the use of phrases such as "people say" or "it is said", this is just another way of saying "We have absolutely no evidence of this, just some people say it... not experts or qualified people, there's obviously no research... just some people said."

Whaaaaaaaat? "If you must..." there will never, ever be a reason some one MUST take a new-born ghost hunting. If you take an infant, especially a new-born, on a ghost-hunt.... YOU ARE CRIMINALLY INSANE! I'm genuinely surprised there's no warning to keep infants away from fireworks and pit bulls here.

Deeply misogynistic. I, like most reasonable people, have a real problem with women being told how to dress. Its one thing to advise sensible garments, but to imply that certain clothing make one a "haunted ho'" or a "Grandma diesel dyke".... Sorry "Lisa" but you strike me as deeply ignorant... I'm not sure you are the right person to be the public face of any organisation or write their guidelines.

  Again, is this also just for women? Also... Fucking HELL! And no have haven't been known to do that... ever. They haven't been "known" to do anything, including exist! You should of stuck to "people say..." here. Someone may actually ask you for a source.

Who thinks that Lisa? Do you think it? Often? Yes? Then what you wrote is true then. Only problem is, this could be tested. Maybe it has. Never been a positive result though. What exactly does a "wild" ghost do? Could you just be scare-mongering here? Trying to make your events seem a little more exciting? Also what the hell is a "phernome"?

Rules for men.

Don't masturbate on an investigation, again file this under "goes without saying".

Again anyone tested this claim. Apparently bi-sexual folks have "tenseness". Also conflating "gay" (sorry "real gay") and "bi-sexual" there hardly dispels the earlier accusation of ignorance. Also why is that under men, does Lisa not know there are bi-sexual women too?

Eat up! You don't want ghosts infesting your stomachs chaps! Not with all the arse ghosts knocking about. I imagine they can cram right up there. Or should I say : "It is often thought that..."

We covered rule 3 for men right at the top. Don't investigate in your underwear. Again "goes without saying". Let's not forget this is a section so stupid it inspired a reality TV show!

The last rule I actually have the strength of will of cover:

What can I say... ear ghosts are hell.... I do agree with this if you think that you've been possessed, you probably shouldn't be ghost hunting. You should probably try to stay as far away from all this utter nonsense as possible.

I hope that while you were reading all this, you had it at the forefront of your mind that this site is the inspiration for the show that Chrissy is casting for. It was the sole source she was prepared to offer me.

That's far more scary than any ear, nose, throat or bum ghost in my opinion.

Naked Ambition?

Here's a story circulating the paranormal sites at the moment: Casting agent seeks naked ghost hunters for a new paranormal show.  Apparently e-mails have been sent out from television production company Matador content, to various paranormal investigative groups to take part in such a show (NB- in her response below Chrissy is keen to point out, she did not send multiple e mails. Her version of events is that she sent one e-mail which was shared by the recipient). Although the general reaction to this has been negative to this in most quarters of the paranormal field, I have no doubt there will be be takers: there are plenty of groups and individuals "in field" whose main interest is TV exposure.

Two things spring to mind with this story: 

1. How over saturated must the paranormal TV market be if producers need to add such a blatantly exploitative "twist" to the genre? I have a passing interest in such shows, but at this stage I couldn't legitimately tell one from another. More are commissioned every year just to replace the shows cancelled. The lack of imagination in the genre is staggering. 

2. I'm not sure this is actually a "genuine" TV show. Certainly I think the e mail was sent out, and a little bit of checking shows that the production company involved is legitimate and Chrissy Glickman also seems to be a genuine casting agent judging by her IMDB page. Matador certainly makes a lot of "reality" television. I'm sure there is a TV program at center of all this, but I'm not entirely sure its going to be a paranormal show. This strikes me as an attempt to get some over-eager, fame-hungry folks to humiliate themselves for the chance at fame. I suspect that the show involved may be a hidden camera show comprised of a series of practical jokes. 

(*sigh* Considering that matador have recently commissioned a series in which women give birth in the wilderness, the above may just be wishful thinking.)

Sorry but I simply do not buy the idea that this company wants to test the hypothesis

"... to see if paranormal research teams get different readings and more evidence than when they are fully clothed. They believe that spirits will communicate with someone more vulnerable." 

Who exactly formulated this idea? Based on what? Is there pre-existing investigation into this? If so I can't find it.

The e-mail also states that that the producer's research reveals:

"...paranormal investigation teams in history doing it in the nude and we want to see if their reasoning for doing it in the nude really does get spirits to communicate easier..."

Really? I've come across a lot of teams with weird and wonderful "investigative" techniques but no naked teams.... If fact the only hits I can find for "naked paranormal investigators" link to stories about this TV show and an earlier attempt to get a similar concept off the ground "Naked Paranormal" in September 2014. So this is utter rubbish then? If there are teams out there performing nude investigations why not just centre the show around them? Why the blanket e-mail.

There simply isn't a history of naked paranormal research, the attempt to legitimize this exploitative rubbish as continuing actual research is transparent and desperate.  I have little doubt this project will get off the ground. 

Its just another hurdle for any legitimate research teams to overcome.  

Here's a copy of the e-mail I sent to Chrissy Glickman asking a few of these pertinent questions. I will of course publish any response I receive.

I'd like to thank Chrissy for her prompt response. Unfortunately there's little here to really justify the "naked angle", apparently the Romans conducted naked paranormal investigations, which is something I'll have look into, although it sounds highly dubious. (since writing this I've checked out Chrissy's source and it is without doubt one of the most moronic paranormal sites I've ever visited. Check out my review of this "source" here.)

Here's my response to Chrissy.

Elisa Lam and the real curse of the Hotel Cecil.

Earlier this year (whoops, last year now!) I wrote a piece for Doubtful News regarding a travel article about the Warren's occult museum in Connecticut. Whilst wildly inaccurate and embarrassingly written by someone who seemed to have not visited the museum, it could hardly be deemed offensive. Unfortunately, while it shares the same tone of tasteless sensationalism, the same can not be said for this article published on the Road Trippers blog, 30/12/14, in the "offbeat" section.

The article concerns the history of the Cecil Hotel L.A, and poses the question: are all of the 600 rooms cursed? While much is made of the stays of serial killers Richard Ramirez and Jack Unterwege (which I'll address shortly), and a few other unpleasant incidents, the main focus of the piece is the death Elisa Lam, a 21 Canadian student, in early 2013.

Elisa Lam

Here is what the Road tripper article tell's us about Lam
and the tragic circumstances surrounding her death.    

"21-year-old Elisa’s body was found in February 2013, two weeks after her death, when the hotel patrons and staff began complaining that the water had begun to taste and look strange. Her body had been unknowingly decomposing inside the rooftop                                                         water tanks for two full weeks."

We hit our first piece of bullshit here and its a considerable one. The water had began to "look" strange? Even if Lam's body had deteriorated extremely quickly its unlikely that any released material would alter the appearance of the water, given the volume contained in the tank, the hotel has four cisterns on its roof that are each about 10 feet tall, 4.5 feet wide and hold at least 1,000 gallons of water pumped directly from local supplies.

Unsurprisingly I can find no references for this claim. It seems the author has added this detail in a vain attempt to add to make a gruesome idea of a body decomposing in drinking even more horrific.

As for the "taste" of the water being "odd" this claim can be found in a few sources, mostly in testimony from residents after the fact. This smacks of ad-hoc rationalization to me.  Backing this up is the fact that tests conducted in the tank and the hotel post-discovery by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health showed no significant increase in bacterial activity and a lack of harmful bacteria. This is likely due to the fact that rooftop water tanks contain sanitizing agents such as chlorine, this coupled with the fact all this occurred in winter, with the cold weather limiting bacterial growth. A "Do Not Drink" order was issued, but this was likely a precaution until further testing could be carried out.

The actual reason that the water tank was investigated was the fact that several tenants had made complaints about low water pressure, it had nothing to due with odd tastes or appearance.

I'm sure like me you can see the dreaded hand of sensationalism creeping in here. Low water pressure just isn't quite gruesome enough is it? So we get the unlikely addition of an odd taste and outright ridiculous notion of an unusual appearance. This trend continues with the inclusion of surveillance  footage of Lam acting strangely in a hotel elevator:

Road Tripper say of this:

"Authorities believe that after this video was recorded, Elisa gained access to the water tank and drowned."

My my. that's a stunning piece of detection there, that occurred BEFORE Lam became trapped in the water tank did it? I'd say that is a FUCKING GIVEN wouldn't you? But how long before? Was it the same day even? For some reason the clock counter is obscured so we can't exactly be sure.

Grab you tinfoil hat, occult-conspiracy website the vigilant citizen, is prepared to go further and state what Road tripper only eludes too:

"...elevator surveillance tape that recorded Elisa’s behavior only a few moments before she lost her life... Right after the events of the video, Elisa apparently gained access to the rooftop of the hotel, climbed to its water tank and, somehow, ended up drowning in it."

Obviously this is nothing more than pure speculation. There is, that I can find, no official comment regarding the video and the timing of it in relationship to the time of Lam's drowning. I doubt that such precision could even be achieved. 

Both the vigilant citizen and Road tripper make a great deal of the fact that Lam appears to be terrified and fleeing something, and later gesticulating and talking to some unseen individual, obviously this eludes to the possibility of something supernatural.. 

This is further enforced by both sites gleefully declaring that Lam's autopsy showed no trace of alcohol or drugs in her system, therefore these things cannot be responsible for her strange behavior that day. 

OK, but there is one other possibility isn't there, and we've been through this many times, when you hear the sound of hoofs, don't immediately assume zebras. Surely mental illness could be a factor here also?

Sure enough Lam had a history of Bipolar disorder.

Let me do a bit of speculation myself here; Lam was a young lady who had been on holiday for five days, away from her usual support system and possibly without her medication. Experiencing a rough patch, she has no-one to turn to, and her behavior becomes increasingly erratic leading to her tragic death.

 If we ask ourselves why no-one saw this and helped, consider the hotel's proximity to LA's skid row, and its extreme "budget" accommodation. The current management acknowledge that the hotel has a problem with drug and alcohol abuse, with even drug dealers taken up residence for months at a time. Could the result of this ultimately be that Lam's unusual behavior was just chalked up, incorrectly, to these factors? 

 The serial killer connection

OK, so two serial killers, one extremely famous, both had stays at the Cecil Hotel, during this period both committed several murders. Is the road tripper article implying that it was the "curse" of the hotel that drew in these murderers, somehow caused their actions. In the case of Richard Ramirez that seems to be the case:

"Ramirez, aka The Night Stalker, became infamous when he terrorized LA from 1984-85, killing 13 women, all of which he did while staying in the top floor of the Cecil"

The tin foil hat brigade at LA observed this time, have this to say about Ramirez, apparently it all links together in sum numerology bollocks:

"1985, when rates were as low as $14 a night, Richard Ramirez lived in a 14th floor room of the Cecil while killing 14 people. (Occult numerology, anyone?)"

Wait! Road trippers say 13 murders not 14. Ramirez did commit 14 murders (that we know of) why not mention one? Because it doesn't fit the narrative they are trying to establish. See Ramirez's first murder in April 1984 was likely not to have been committed while he was staying at the Cecil, the reason being even through details are sketchy at best Ramirez is said to have stayed at the hotel sporadically for a period of months in 1985. His crimes predate his stay at the hotel, therefore Ramirez didn't stay because of its diabolical influence, he stayed because it was cheap and he could pass virtually unnoticed.

But did Ramirez somehow cause "the curse" did some essence of his pass into the building. Its almost certainly one of Jack Unterweger's reasons for staying there. But again it wasn't any supernatural force, Unterweger was seeking the media sensation that was "the night stalker", perhaps also in the belief that some essence of evil lingered there. It also didn't hurt that Unterweger intended to murder prostitutes, and the proximity to skid row provided a steady supply.

So what about all the other "strange occurrences", the suicides and murders! Look at what we've learned about the hotel thus far, its proximity to skid row, its persistent low rate of accommodation and the kind problems the people staying there commonly had. Would we not be more surprised if nothing terrible ever occurred there. That would persuade me of a supernatural intervention, not the contrary.

While literally hundreds of pages and sites speculate on the supernatural curse of the Cecil, they over look the real curse; the prevalent all encompassing depravity some sections of our society are forced to live in, and the terrible ends they, and others they encounter, tend to meet.

But why do articles like this, focusing on Elisa Lam, make me particularly angry? We are talking about the tragic death of a young woman with her whole future ahead of her. A woman struggling with mental illness, alone and scared at the time of her death. Leaving a family behind her with a grief of a magnitude unknown by anyone who has not lost a child. Her name shouldn't be trotted out for the sake of pretty sensationalism.  To add credence to some bullshit story. Elisa Lam is not an "offbeat" story you tap out as you consider what fun you'll have at the New Year's eve party.