Let's do the time-warp... (AGAIN?). Examining the 'Vegas Interstate Time Anomaly'

The past few days have seen a number of news reports regarding a 'time-warp' allegedly discovered by paranormal investigator Joshua P Warren on the outskirts of Las Vegas. Are we really looking at the 'Vegas Interstate Time Anomaly' or could there be a more rational explanation? 

I'm a bit late to the party on this one so I know by the time I publish this a few skeptics will have commented on it and Joshua has already responded to his critics in his podcast. Maybe I can add something else to the discourse. Maybe not...

I'm going to split my examination of this story into three parts. First, the story as it was published. Then we'll look at the equipment that Warren used which is central to his claim. Finally, we'll examine Joshua's ideas about science and what I believe are the fundamental mistakes he made in handling the situation.

The story

Joshua's claims were first reported by Las Vegas Fox affiliate, Fox5 KVVU-TV(1). The text version of the story begins:

"LAS VEGAS (FOX5) -A paranormal researcher said he's the first person to ever discover a time warp, and that he found it on the outskirts of Las Vegas. Joshua Warren has been measuring the rate of time all over Southern Nevada, and he said, last week he found that time had slowed down. 

He said he measured multiple places between Las Vegas and Area 51, but the only place he got a reading was in the desert just north of the city between I-15 and Route 93."
“The weird thing, the real holy grail here, was what we picked up with this brand-new piece of technology,” Warren said."

"The technology he’s referring to was the DT Meter, which stands for differential time rate meter. It was recently invented by a Silicon Valley engineer, Ron Heath. It's connected to a 100-foot cable with a sensor on the end that sends back a signal."

Above is the piece of equipment that Joshua is referring to, the DT or Differential Time meter which retails for $219 on Bay, it proudly proclaims that it will help owners detect UFOs in their vicinity (the promotional material cheekily suggests that for optimal results customers should buy two and place them at right-angles). The meter sends a signal from one end of the system to the other and then back. It measures the time it takes for the signal to complete its journey and then compares the expected time it takes for the signal to complete its journey to the actual time. If there is a difference between the expected time and the received time the monitor displays it.

“That signal is always supposed to travel at the same rate of time at any particular place. The only way that could change is if a black hole approached earth or something like that, which is never supposed to happen,” Warren said. “At this spot, on June 18 of 2018, I actually measured for the first and only time, time itself slowing down for 20 microseconds.”

The claim that the equipment would only display a variation in signal speed as the result of a black hole approaching Earth is something that is taken directly from the website which sells the DT meter. But Joshua doesn't go into the factors which can also cause a discrepancy.

"Warren said that should not happen, according to the laws of physics."

This claim interests me particularly as it simply isn't true. In fact, Warren himself refers to events in spacetime that can affect time. The reason an approaching black hole would affect time is a result of a phenomenon known as time dilation. It's an established facet of general relativity that proximity to gravitational sources can cause time to 'run slow'. This means that time would slower at the bottom of a tall tower rather than the top. As the cable is only 100 meters long and it seems Joshua placed it horizontally this wouldn't be a factor in this case though.

What is most interesting here though is Joshua is, in my opinion, focusing on the wrong aspect of his experiment. The device he is using doesn't actually measure time, it measures how long it takes for an electromagnetic signal to travel from one end of the system to the other. It's really measuring speed of the signal and cross-referencing it against the distance travelled. That could be splitting hairs a little I know, but bear with me.

 In the case of this device, the signal is travelling through a cable. It's pretty safe to assume that the speed of the signal doesn't change too much, probably remaining about 2c/3, but that doesn't necessarily mean that if we see a variation between expected travel time and measured travel time of the signal, spacetime itself has changed.

A quick recollection of the speed/distance/time triangle you were probably taught in your first year of high school science probably gives you an indication of the answer to this conundrum. What if it wasn't the speed of the signal that altered, but the distance the signal had to travel?

I think the abnormal reading that Joshua received in the desert that day was a result of the thermal expansion of the cable that is carrying the signal. The signal is confined to the cable. If the cable expands the signal obviously has to travel further. A warping of spacetime really isn't needed. The hot Nevada desert will do just fine.

The heat wouldn't just expand in one direction but in three, meaning that any change would be cubed. That's how even a small change in temperature could lead to a large error in the reading.

Experimental error and Noise

You'll notice from the display that the device doesn't sit at a reading of 0.000000000. There is, as should be expected, a little bit of 'noise' an expected amount of interference that causes the clock not to be perfectly synchronised. Noise is defined as anything that alters the sensitivity of a piece of measuring equipment. 

The creator of the DT meter, Ron Heath, states that the average noise should be +/- 4 or 5 milliseconds (2). Displayed on the meter screen as 0.000005 s/s. Joshua recorded an abnormal reading of 20 milliseconds, way above the noise under normal conditions. That would appear on the meter as 0.00002 s/s.

The catch comes when we consider what the sources of the noise are considered to be by the DT meter's creator. He states on the device's promotional website and in its instruction manual (3)

"A 1:1 time rate where the two rates of time are the same will read 0.00000XXX where the XXX is noise and temperature drift that defines the limits of the meter sensitivity."

Interesting he'd mention temperature as a cause of noise. When we consider that Joshua is using the device in the desert, where it's presumably extremely hot, shouldn't we expect the thermal contribution to the noise to be much greater?

Heath seems to aware of this potential fault in the system. His website advises that the system is used away from direct sunlight and extreme heat. He also advises that the cable element should be buried. As was pointed out to me by Nick Stone, it would also seem from this recommendation that, aside from the effect of temperature and direct sunlight, the system isn't designed to be carried around harsh terrain.

It probably hasn't escaped your attention that this entire claim can be debunked by reading the instruction manual of the device that was used to collect the data. 

Another thing that we have to consider is that the difference in time that is displayed is an average of the differences measured over a period of five seconds. This is significant because if the system fails to send a signal or fails to register a received signal then this would presumably cause an extremely large difference in the average travel times. The anomaly Joshua recorded could simply be a result of a system failure. Perhaps a momentary drop in power, or exposure to an unusually strong magnetic field. 

How science works

Of course, these kinds of faults are present with all forms of scientific equipment, so how do scientists account for this kind of anomaly?

The answer is they take lots of measurements. Then they see if other people can get the same measurements. Then they try to control for other factors which could have caused the measurements. These are things that Joshua has failed to do. He's registered one anomalous result and based his belief in a time-warp on the basis of this. As we've mentioned on this blog several times, this is what investigator Kenny Biddle calls 'Anomaly hunting'. I'm not sure that the term has ever fit better than in this case. In fact, Joshua even tells us he was in the desert to "hunt for anomalies" it would seem he found one and immediately called the local news! 

Sharon Hill of Doubtful News left the above comment on the Fox5 news report that alludes to this point. It was one of many comments on the story that highlights the idea to Joshua that his results shouldn't be singular and should be reproducible by others. Joshua could've responded to this criticism by releasing his results and showing his methodology. He didn't.

He responded by producing a 17-minute podcast (4) telling others how to 'handle criticism'. On the show, he suggests his critics don't understand science and refers to the anomalous measurements that led to the discovery of the gulf stream. The problem is, those measurements were reproduced. If reproduction had failed the idea would have never been developed.

Warren needs to realise that if he wants his findings to be considered 'science' he has to follow the strictures of that discipline and that means you show your findings and you submit to peer review. If you're found to have made a mistake, you accept it and move on. Most importantly, you don't present your work based on one result.

In his podcast, Joshua also makes reference to a fellow investigator who he seems to hold in some esteem. He talks about his person being 'driven from the field' by negativity and haters. I think I know who he is talking about. This is a man who was forced to leave the field because he couldn't handle peer-review. When the mistakes he had made were exposed he doubled down on them and retreated to an echo-chamber. He attacked his critics and extremely personal and unfair ways.

Joshua. Don't be the same. Accept your mistakes or work to prove they weren't mistakes. That's the only way you'll grow. And it's the only way you'll ever be considered to be 'doing science'.

I reached out to Joshua P Warren for more complete data rom his investigations. When I receive it I will post an update.

References

(1) http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/38515977/time-warp-discovered-by-paranormal-investigator-outside-of-las-vegas

(2) http://www.rhwebco.com/DT-Meter_Blurb.html

(3) http://www.rhwebco.com/DT-Meter_Manual.pdf

(4) www.buzzsprout.com/127013/738279-joshua-p-warren-daily-dealing-with-criticism

Paranormal Teams Must Stop Using Physical Injury As Evidence Of "Ghost Attack"

In my last post, I discussed one of the effects of a boom in paranormal investigation teams being formed which are either heavily or solely inspired television ghost hunting. So it only seems fitting that I tackle another aspect of that same phenomena in this subsequent post. This time it's an element that is more worrying than poor investigation techniques or a fundamental misunderstanding of how equipment operates. I find the explosion of paranormal investigators using physical marks and scratches as evidence most concerning. The phenomena seems to have grown in response to its popularisation on shows like Ghost Adventures, now there are few paranormal teams whose social media page doesn't include images of team-mates bodies adorned with scrapes and scratches. (Please note, barring the example below and the one at the foot of the post, I've used very few examples of these scratches and welts presented by paranormal teams throughout what follows. This was a conscious choice, as whilst many of these images would strengthen my case and I do normally like to present examples, I don't want to garner further attention for the practice, which I find pretty abhorrent.)

Here's an example from Greg Newkirk of Week In Weird. Gregg claims that scratches occurred during an investigation at Ohio State Penitentiary. 

In the "raw footage" offered by Newkirk, he expresses feeling pushed, the camera cuts and when footage resumes we find three finger marks dragged down Newkirk's back. Clearly, Newkirk doesn't understand what raw footage is, the edit here distinctly prevents this from being considered "raw". It's just footage. Nor is it footage of an "entity attack" as Newkirk describes it on Week in Weird. As is common in paranormal TV the marks on Newkirk's back are unveiled "live" on hard camera. This is done to give the impression that the marks must have occurred recently and thus isn't faked off camera. It's an element that's negated here by that edit. This element of immediacy is also neglected in the volume of images produced by Paranormal Investigation teams. The reason that paranormal TV shows present this as "evidence" is it's presented as happening right on camera. This doesn't transfer to static images. I'd describe what these Tv shows do as something or a crude conjuring trick. It's not difficult to explain where or when the scratches occur, immediately before filming or possibly as some sleight of hand on camera which goes unnoticed. These images aren't even a crude conjuring trick. It's akin to the magician revealing the card in the inside pocket of his jacket and expecting applause when he tells you he assures you it was in the deck and it is the card you would have chosen if he'd given you the opportunity to do so!

Newkirk and the paranormal teams also neglect another element of paranormal investigation shows: they fake evidence all the time and this is the easiest thing to fake. Blemishes and easy enough to produce, especially in areas of sensitive skin such as necks and backs, coincidentally where these things always seem to occur. 

So why should we consider these scratches and blemishes as anything remotely non-naturalistic? Newkirk (and I use his arguments as an example of wider held justifications) is again on hand to explain why skin abrasions such as the one he received are distinguishable from ones received from more naturalistic in origin, i.e:- one's own fingers/fingernails and the finger/fingernails of a co-investigator:

"When someone is scratched by a stray nail, a girly-fight, or their own hand, there’s often the tell-tale remainder of white, ashy skin flakes and traces of blood, but in the case of “supernatural scratches”, the wounds seem to fit a different set of criteria. They’re free of blood, lack the powdery remainder of skin cells scraped off by fingernails, and appear as something much like burns or welts."

Skin flakes and blood traces? Aren't such things extremely small? It would take a detailed examination to ascertain that such things were absent from supposedly paranormally induced marks. Also just because red marks appear doesn't mean the skin has been broken. Pressure applied to the skin can cause blood vessels to burst under the skin. It's like Newkirk doesn't know what a bruise is. Even when bruising doesn't occur pressure applied to the skin can cause blood to rush to that area to deliver clotting factors.

Greg continues:

"...Even more interesting is that the scratches disappear shortly thereafter, usually within hours of their appearance. These kinds of criteria aren’t simply limited to scratches either, but manifest as many other physical marks allegedly inflicted by supernatural forces..." 

Again, one would expect any red mark on the skin to fade, in the latter case which  I outlined above without any visible signs of any physical trauma. So why do these red marks appear so red? I think back to your childhood. Ever been hit by a football in the cold? Hurts a lot much than in the warm. It also leaves a more intense red mark. This because in cold environments the blood in your body is withdrawn from extremities to maintain body temperature. This includes the skin in a process called peripheral vasoconstriction. Thus when some pressure is applied to the skin and blood rushes to the area to deliver clotting agents that area appears much redder than surrounding areas. Couple this with strong lights sources against dark environments which can blanch the appearance of the skin anyway, making the red welts appear far more pronounced. Where do ghost hunters do their work predominantly? In the cold and the dark.

You may well be thinking now "why should marks made by ghosts applying force appear any different from force applied by the fingers?" Is it surprising the body reacts in a similar way, which is opposed the differences Greg lays out above. There's a very crucial argument from physics similar to the one I made here. The force would have to be applied by some form of matter, which should be detectable in other ways. It should have mass. Most ghost hunters would insist this isn't the case. Or they'd attempt to invoke energy mass equivalence, as they don't understand what "energy" is, or the deeper implications of E=mc^2, most tend to view energy and mass as some currency which can be exchanged in an easy non-violent fashion. Cue Greg's energy argument, and an instant display that he doesn't really understand at least one form of energy.

"Upon closer inspection, marks left by “ghosts” don’t conform to wounds left by physical force. They more often appear to have been left by energy, like stray electricity moving through the air, leaving behind burns and welts in its wake,,,"

Stray electricity doesn't just wander through the air until it strikes a hapless ghost hunter. Electricity moves between areas of differing potential. Stray electricity describes a system where some form of isolation has failed and a potential gradient has been created. More pertinently when "energy" causes a mark on flesh it isn't shaped like fingers. Newkirk and others who use similar arguments to justify want us to focus on the details so we miss the obvious. These marks and welts are almost always in the form of finger marks, they almost always reflect the normal spread and positioning of fingers. Often one can even differentiate the typically stronger fingers from the darker welts and find they conform to the positioning on the hand.

Conclusion

When I first wrote about this topic it was in response to evidence of the paranormal offered by an Irish paranormal investigation team. I took particular exception to an image of a female team member with welts on the side of her neck which appeared self-inflicted. The team member in question became very upset that I had implied that she had self-harmed. But I'm sorry, that's the most obvious conclusion that the evidence points to. That or that someone else did that to her. Or she has a rare undiagnosed dermatological condition. Paranormal teams who offer these images as evidence cannot point to anything that suggests a non-natural explanation, all they tend to offer is anecdote around the circumstances under which the marks occurred, and anecdote doesn't constitute a high enough level of evidence to overlook our everyday experience of how these marks occur, not to mention the wealth of evidence from physics and biology. By sharing these images these teams and individuals encourage others to self-inflict wounds upon themselves in the name of "evidence". They are encouraging people to hurt themselves. Even if they believe these marks are genuine, that's deeply irresponsible.

I'll leave you with some images that deeply coloured my opinion of this topic. It's a "paranormal investigator" from a team I won't name. He's sat in a chair nursing the wounds of a supposed "ghost attack" and what looks like an alcoholic beverage and he appears drunk. The marks don't appear to have been made by fingers but by a sharp object. Next to his chair is a small child who lives in the house the is under investigation. This child likely believes that something unseen in this house physically harmed this man.

This subject speaks deeply to the ethical responsibility of paranormal investigation, and many teams come up lacking to a shocking degree, and responsible teams must consider speaking up in comdemnation.

A Trifecta Of Turgid Tabloid Toss! Ghost Actresses! Thermal Cameras! Elves!

I guess the British tabloid press is tired of Brexit and Trump news and has decided to "treat" its eager readers with a glut of genuine, "unquestionable paranormal phenomena" today (15/01/17). Let's take a look at three bar-lowering examples.

Our first story comes from the Sun (and various other tabloids) courtesy of ghost hunter Caroline Mezoian of EVP paranormal. The image (below) taken in Bidford City Theatre, Maine, purportedly shows the ghost of actress Eva Gray who died at the location in 1904.

The image was taken with an infra-red camera, and immediately presents two questions: "Is that it?" and "Was Eva Gray only a foot or so tall?". as the body of the alleged phantom stretches only a few steps in height. The team's facebook page features many other images taken with Infra-red cameras showing similar blurs which are taken to be human-like forms or phantoms. The example to the right was allegedly taken on the same night.

The Sun declares breathlessly and without hint of ambiguity "Infared images taken at the theatre last month show a ghostly white figure in an evening dress standing on the stairs appearing to walk out of the building." I guess that settles it then!

Whilst many commenters have accused the team of faking the image, I'm feeling slightly more charitable. I think the images they are getting here are a result of one of two things, either a failure to properly maintain their IR camera, or a failure to understand how the technology actually works. In the first case, it's possible that the images could be caused by smudges on the camera lens, a fingerprint for example or a smudge on the lens. Far more likely is a common failure to understand how the IR technology works.

 It is intuitive to view images taken in the IR spectrum in the same way we view images in the visual spectrum. All we are talking about after all is a downward shift in the electromagnetic spectrum, but the whole reason IR cameras are popular in the paranormal field is because they will show things that aren't visible to the naked eye. Before we jump to the conclusion of something paranormal we have to eliminate more mundane things which can't be seen with the human eye. As IR cameras are presenting a picture made up by heat gradients, it's quite plausible that all we are seeing is an area that is slightly warmer than the surrounding environment. In a 2010 article for the Skeptical Inquirer, Ben Radford explains how misattribution due to a basic misunderstanding of this technology arises.

"Heat is of course far less transient than light; if we turn off a light switch in a closed room, the area goes dark almost instantly. But if we turn off a source of heat--including body heat--in an area or room, the heat may remain long after the source has been removed.... At an investigation I carried out last year for the TV show MysteryQuest, one of the ghost hunters used a forward looking infrared (FLIR) camera to detect a foot-long vertical warm spot on a pillar. No one in the room could explain what caused it; one person suggested it was a sign that a ghost had been watching us. In fact I had seen one of the ghost hunters leaning against the pillar a few minutes earlier, and the warm spot matched exactly the height and shape of the man's upper arm." Radford. 2010.

 I think that's the explanation here frankly. As Caroline herself states in the article “’I didn’t really believe it at first, but when you look at the images how can you deny that’s not something?” I agree, but as often happens with paranormal investigation teams who closely emulate the methods seen on ghost hunting television shows, "something" can't be extrapolated to "something paranormal" without a much higher standard of evidence than these images present.

Which leads us into our second paranormal story, which shares some similarities and, I believe, can be explained in a similar way.

The Daily Mirror (15/01/17) reports on more images presented by a ghost hunting team, this time it's East Drive Paranormal. The team are presumably named in connection paranormal tourism location 30 East Drive in Pontefract, made infamous by various ghost hunting tv shows, most notably Most Haunted. You would be forgiven for suspecting that the named the team have selected indicates their inspiration in investigating the paranormal comes from such programming.

The Mirror tells us:

"The team were summoned to the Italian restaurant after scared staff reported seeing a glass flying off the bar. Jason (a psychic apparently) immediately sensed the spirit of a disgruntled man in his 50s, who had been disturbed by recent decorating work... " 

The only evidence we're given of paranormal activity prior to the team's visit, barring anecdote of course, is a glass falling across the bar and shocking a member of staff and patron chatting at the other end of the bar. Of course, we see no surrounding events to suggest why this should be unusual in any way. Things stacked improperly or in a precarious equilibrium can easily be disturbed, and the glass skitters across the bar simply because it initially bounces a little.


So what about the teams actually footage? Go and watch the video if you like, but I'm going to provide a couple of screen caps that show East Drive Paranormal really don't have a clue about the equipment they're using and conducting an investigation in general.

Image 1: So here we see vaguely human shapes formed on the infrared camera. Could it be a ghost, or is there a more obvious explanation.

Image 2: Our camera operator whips around presumably to see if he can capture the image of whatever the thermal camera is picking up. In doing so he reveals that the area being recorded isn't isolated in any way shape or form! In all likelyhood, the thermal images are a result of the body heat of the other occupants of the room. As Ben out lies above, the body heat remains after the team members move on.

 Image 3 and 4: As if to compound this massive cock up, we are shown an image of at least two people walking through the exact area where the thermal images were! In fact, there are so many people walking about I have to question if the restaurant is even closed! It's busier than in the footage we see whilst it's open for business.

I'd say "It doesn't get much more inept than this." but someone at the Daily Star would likely consider that something of a challenge. In fact, given this story they published today (15/01/17), they already have. In the story, reporter Jesse Bell tells us of a heated Reddit debate in which users debate whether the image on the right below represents an elf or a dwarf....

Jesse tells us

"One user said: “I’m picturing the black part as being the back of the head, kind of sloped upwards and maybe wearing a little hat.... Honestly the only thing I can see it as is a little elf.”.. Another wrote: “I’ve heard about dwarfs a bit growing up."...“They are on the paranormal spectrum and judging by the size and stature that's what I might take this to be.”..."

I suppose this should be funny, but it's not really. It's just awful and sad. I know not dealing with this critically makes me a bad skeptic or a cynic, but.... I'll ship to my final point.

So what have we learned from today's tabloid paranormal output? Some paranormal teams are inept, as are some journalists, and the Daily Star really doesn't give a flying fuck what they publish.

Hardly news.

Anomaly Hunting: An Open Letter to team PSII Part 1

This is an open letter response to paranormal investigation team PSII, I previously commented on a news story featuring a video and a photograph the team claim is evidence of the paranormal.
they responded to me here, I'll comment on some elements of this, plus I'll also be referencing comments made by the PSII team on my facebook page Skeptic's Boot: The Rational Paranormal and the suggestions made by a few of the patrons of the page.

Firstly, I want PSII to know, anything I write here is not personal. I like to be forthright and I believe in openness and frankness. The team's response which I linked to  above was presented on their Facebook page in a rather emotive way.

Criticism isn't always nasty. Sometimes it's necessary. In the case of the paranormal, it's vital. Paranormal teams don't get to pick and choose which parts of scientific method they like and which they don't. Which principles they use and which they can ignore. Generally speaking, teams want to use scientific equipment, albeit often incorrectly, and they certainly want the respect amongst their followers that a hastily slapped on scientific label brings. PSII are a prime example of this. Here's how the team describe themselves on their FB page:

Paranormal Searchers Ireland is a non profit team of investigators located in Ireland with the key objective to scientifically prove the existence of the Paranormal , i.e. Ghosts/Spirits/Legends/Demons/Angels and everything supernatural.  

Great, but if PSII wants to tell their followers that they use scientific methods then they have to accept the "nasty" stuff too. That means, amongst other things, peer review. That's what I and others provide. We examine ideas, methodologies, hypothesis and data and highlight flaws. This isn't done in academia out of pettiness and spite, why should it be the case in the paranormal? Peer review is in a large part responsible for building the edifice of subjects as diverse as science, history, and philosophy. It's the buffer that protects the sciences in particular from slipping into dogma and blind belief. Is this why so many teams react so badly to it?

TOUGH. 

You don't like peer review, stop claiming to use scientific methods. Stop using this to claim legitimacy you aren't prepared to earn.

Want an example of how criticism, contrary views, and peer review is handled in science from Richard Dawkins' book the God Delusion:

“I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real... Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said - with passion - 'My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.'” Dawkins

Do you think Dawkins would still be telling that story still if his Professor had instead said to his visiting colleague "Why are you being so nasty? Academia can be an ugly place." He may, but it wouldn't be in admiration. 

The author of the team's response tells us at one point: "Technology simply does not exist that will 100% completely prove the paranormal in any form..." Without getting into a discussion about the impossibility of absolute truth, the author simply doesn't understand the concept of proof. We aim to prove within a margin of reasonable doubt. What PSII provide in this video and photo leaves open far too many alternative explanations and those alternatives are within our current understanding of the laws of nature. Ghosts are not. Any knowledge of the concept of parsimony, or Occam's Razor would tell PSII that the ghost hypothesis is based on too many assumptions and mechanisms that are unverified to be favored over a naturalistic hypothesis or the null hypothesis. As a commenter on my previous blog pointed out, Occam's Razor is only a guideline in selecting a hypothesis when data is inconclusive, it's not fool proof. But that is when we are considering two or more similarly weighted ideas, not when one is loaded with assumptions that can't be granted.

Also, PSII does claim absolute certainty. Take a look at this grabbed from one of their videos. This clearly demonstrates that the team begins an investigation with the assumption ghosts exist. This isn't an application of the scientific method in which the null hypothesis is the default position until shown otherwise. Also, if they are so certain that Comgalls is haunted why do they continue to conduct investigations there. I'm sure their answer would be "To collect evidence stupid" proving the point that their assumption is their conclusion! They are looking for evidence of something that they are already certain of.

To reiterate: PSII engages in investigations for one reason: to look for evidence of the paranormal. Beginning with the assumption stated above guarantees they will find it.

What the team is actually engaged in is the process of anomaly hunting. Kenny Biddle, a long time critic of the practices of ghost hunting groups, highlighted this last year:

"Personally, I think the majority of ghost hunters are not "ghost hunting"... they're Anomaly Hunting. They're looking for any anomalies that they can't understand. ... Anomaly hunting is not investigating, nor is it science. It is cherry picking, and self-deception... You must consider ALL of the data, and allow ALL of the data to lead you to a conclusion.Anomaly hunting is based on the idea of starting with a conclusion, then picking out the bits of data that support it...while throwing out the data that refutes or explains your conclusion in a way that doesn't fit with your beliefs."- Kenny Biddle. 

This is exactly what we see PSII doing repeatedly on their Youtube channel videos, they find things they struggle to explain and then assign an unwarranted  paranormal explanation. The photo offered by the team in the Mirror article as evidence of the paranormal is a perfect example of this anomaly hunting in action. The white object can't be identified so it's assigned a paranormal explanation.

The person who took this photo actually pointed out to me, again on my facebook page, that he has never claimed the photo was that of a ghost, but that it was simply unidentified. Why I appreciate and applaud his open-mindedness on this, frankly someone on the team most certainly IS doing this as seen below in the screen capture of a pinned post on the group's facebook page. Groups generally pin a post that they want all their followers to read. Sorry, but someone in the team really wants us to believe this is an image of ghosts.

The author continues "...this is why a team works hard gaining the trust of people so that they can judge for themselves if the presented evidence is authentic or not..." Are we seriously to accept this data, to be paranormal in nature based on reputation? 

What would one of the world's foremost physicists and awesome bongo players say about this? It's Feynman time:

"It doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."_Richard Feynman. 

If it's science PSII are doing, and they claim it is, then reputation is meaningless. Of course, PSII wants their evidence to be considered in the court of public opinion only. And why not? Who doesn't like to have their ego massaged? I'd ask PSII if they have considered how unhealthy foisting an echo chamber would be to the paranormal community? It's part of the reason I and others vehemently oppose, so-called "para-unity" it's an agreement between groups to remove challenges and criticism. Unsurprisingly, team PSII are fans of para-unity.


The author continues:

"What I can say is that Team PSII have never faked evidence, in fact , we do not capture evidence in abundance as the paranormal is not some toy we can turn on and off , it will happen when it happens and we simply need to be really lucky to capture it."

I took a look at PSII's team history and the above is pretty much true. Barring a photo where a ghost app has clearly been used (right). PSII don't appear to have many outright "fakes" on their page or website. The question is, how much credit should we actually give them for this? Surely not faking should be a given? Add to this out and out fakery isn't the only form of deception available to paranormal teams. What about willfully ignoring possible rational explanations? 

I'm not saying PSII are guilty of this but I find the "we're not fakers" argument laughably naive to say the least. As is the author's suggestion that no teams in Ireland fake evidence.

The author can't possibly know this for a fact, and we can't take his word for it as not only is paranormal fakery a global phenomenon that isn't geographic in nature, but also we have to doubt his ability to actually identify fakery.

Let's leave deception to one side for the moment, it will rear it's ugly head again shortly, and point out that not faking evidence in no way validates the evidence PSII do present, I've already stated perhaps PSII's greatest failing is their lack of willingness to consider natural explanations for their evidence. Imagine a failing student barging into to his principle's office and demanding credit because his term of straight F's in all subjects  prove that he isn't cheating.

He's still failing regardless.

During a discussion with team member Eoin, who I also believe also wrote the rebuttal I have been referencing, on my Rational Paranormal page, I requested the original undoctored and edited footage that the team recorded. Eoin obliged and I'm grateful for that. Unfortunately, it's abundantly clear that PSII members haven't been totally honest about the video.

Here's the claim they make in the version passed to the press, the footage was recorded in April 2016

In the aforementioned video, the bottom right is dominated by the PSII logo, PSII do occasionally brand their videos in this way, but this is the only one I've found with the brand in the bottom right. The majority aren't branded at all. So why this one?

The undoctored version shows that PSII's reason for doing this was more than just harmless publicity. They were hiding the fact that the footage seems to have been recorded three years ago in September 2013!

You can view this unedited footage for yourself here:

PSII claim in the video's description,  that the time stamp was wrong in the video, but I'd question this claim as from viewing PSII's youtube footage I can see most of their cameras also time stamps. This one (above) does, it's in the same location and has the same font, so I'm pretty sure this footage was taken from the same camera which as you can see from the screengrab below, taken from a video posted in November 2014. 

Again the team claims that the time stamp is wrong, but are we to seriously believe they haven't corrected this in the intervening two years? Also, if these two pieces of footage were recorded two years apart why has only 3 months passed on the inaccurate time-stamp? Could this simply be an excuse they use when they post old footage and pass it off as new? Both myself and another user, Gary, asked Eoin on my facebook page to explain this inconsistency, Eoin has yet to respond.

This seems like a direct attempt to hide details of the origin of this video.

I suppose the question now is, does any of this impact the validity of the video? I'd say yes for two reasons: It shows that PSII isn't particularly diligent in their methodology. They were clearly aware that the time stamp was wrong in 2014, why not correct it? If they did correct it, they are aware of the possibility of the error, why aren't they checking their equipment thoroughly? Plus, the date being wrong prevents us from looking into the circumstances surrounding the investigation in question such as weather conditions at the time. The area the camera is placed in is hardly environmentally isolated when placed in front of large, poorly insulated windows.

The team asks us repeatedly to take things on faith, they claim that the footsteps and coughing heard on the video,could not be a team member, as they were all elsewhere at the time. There's no attempt to demonstrate this. The team claim that a further video clip proves this:

"Team PSII – This clip was the 4th clip in a series of six taken by this camera, the clip before shows the team heading to the basement area, one floor below, so no members of the team are in this area."

They haven't provided this clip of course. Plus even if we have the clip of the team heading from the area this wouldn't demonstrate none of the team then headed back up. Nor would it prove that was the complete team heading down the stairs, or less likely but possible, there wasn't someone else in the building. Also, we can't confirm that the videos are concurrent because.... all together now....
the bloody time stamps won't match!

When most of us hear footsteps and a cough we assume that is connected to proximity to another human being, Why should we adjust this, sensible assumption on nothing but word alone?

Whilst discussing the video footage, Robert another visitor to my FB page asks why there wasn't a camera covering the camera that moved and why more of the area isn't covered. A member of the team responded that it would be ludicrous to expect them to be able to cover the entirety of a massive building. I agree, but I don't think that's what Robert is suggesting. The team could select a small area such as we see in the footage and isolate it as fully as possible from the surrounding environment and ensure this small test area is fully covered by cameras.


The above criticisms I've made are in no way exhaustive. I've attempted to be brief, unfortunately, there's more to come. During the course of my discussions with PSII many questions have been asked regarding why I do what I do and how I do it on this blog and my other pages, as have questions of ethics in both my approach and theirs.

I'll address these factors in part 2.

*Cough* Great "Evidence" for the Paranormal *Cough*

Take a look at this footage featured in a report by Belfast Live yesterday (08/05/16) and in today's Daily Mirror (09/05/16). Recorded at St Comgalls on Divis Street West Belfast in April, by paranormal investigations team PSII, who claim that the camera was set off by some unseen motion and that both footsteps and a disembodied voice saying "get out" can be heard.

As you can probably see, without unedited footage we simply can't conclude that the camera is moved by a "ghost". This could easily be a member of the team stood behind the camera altering it. Nor can we conclude that the recording was set off by "ghostly motion". We only have the team's word that this was even motion sensitive, and if it was it could have easily been set off by the team member moving behind the camera.

The paper and the team both seem very impressed with the "disembodied" voice. which allegedly says "get out". Yeah.... erm... pretty sure that's a cough. One could also probably put the footsteps down to this person walking through the corridor outside the room in which the camera is located.

Sorry PSII, this just isn't impressive at all.

The team also provide some other "evidence" in the form of the following photographs, about which the paper says:

"They also say they were able to capture images of a man standing in a corridor of the school and another of a child in a white dress."

I assume the above image is that of the child in a dress, and the image below is presumably a zoomed in version.

Now I can't personally see the second figure in the original image and I have to question why the team hasn't zoomed in on it as they did with the claimed child image?

PSII also try to pass this off as two separate apparitions on their FB page, so this isn't an error of an exaggeration by the newspaper.

In terms of the team's evidence, this is as far as the newspaper goes, but the team offers another piece of evidence on their FB page. It's pretty clear why it's left out of the article.

Words cannot express how reprehensible I find the practice of investigations teams offering things like this as evidence is. Firstly there is no way to show this wasn't done by a human hand. The positioning on the victims neck/face is perfectly placed for the right hand to have reached over and made these marks. If they'd been done from behind, for example, they would have to slope down the other way (front high to back low)unless the attacker were extremely tall. Even then it would be awkward. If the marks were made from the front, the victim should have been able to see the attacker.

I'm left with the disturbing impression that this is a form of self-harm, we are seeing all too often in the paranormal field. I'd urge groups to reconsider before posting images like this, if nothing else, they can't show that this is not naturalistic, it's highly replicable, so PSII are just encouraging others to hurt themselves for the sake of producing "evidence".

At this point, I imagine that you've noticed that almost every time I've typed "evidence" I've used inverted commas. That's because I don't really think that PSII understands what constitutes evidence of the paranormal. As what PSII are claiming to do is research we can safely assume that valid evidence should be empirical in nature, we should also assume that the hypothesis they are attempting to prove or disprove is, very simply, "Ghosts exist and can be caught on traditional recording equipment". Let's be charitable and call PSII's video and photographs data, it's clear that when assessing this data the team are assuming as an axiom that ghosts exist. As such, they immediately dismiss rational explanations and expect us to do the same. 

Sorry, but Sagan said it best...

Any claim of the existence of ghosts is most certainly extraordinary as it's acceptance would require the rewriting of many of the laws of physics, laws which are not only well-evidence but are the foundations of our understanding of the universe. Even the most impressive "ghost" video or photo can not be considered extraordinary.... naturalistic explanations or fakery would need to be ruled out first. 

Unfortunately, PSII have solidly failed to do this. 

In The Pink! A Peer Review of PINK (Paranormal Investigations National Kinship) Group.

Sometimes a gauntlet is thrown down and you simply can't resist picking it up. A little while ago I became aware of a paranormal investigation team call PINK (Paranormal Investigations National Kinship)  via a  public spat they had with a group that offer paranormal peer review, Paranormal & Supernatural Peer Claims Review. PINK accused this group of being unfair in their review and not focusing not the actual "evidence" on their site. Many who viewed the spat on PSPCR regarded their objections as the same sour grapes that many groups resort to after an unfavourable review, PINK maintain that they have no objection to peer review in general.

Now I'm not going to get involved in the argument, all I can say is that I have found PSPCR to do excellent work in the past, I'm aware that their brutal honesty offends some. I would maintain that sometimes groups are too attached to their "evidence" and this causes poor behaviour when it is assessed. I am not suggesting that is the case here. As a side note: Many groups could learn a lot from PRIP's response to my recent peer review of one of their investigations. They were very cordial and open to criticism. It was refreshing to say the least, and I thank PRIP for this.

Anyway, I offered PINK the benefit of doubt, and the opportunity to have me peer-review some of their evidence and methods. They accepted, but haven't sent me any details or suggestions of what they would like me to look at, so I will take a general look at their website.

Before I continue, you will notice that I haven't linked to the group's site. This is because there seems to be an ongoing security issue. The group are aware of this and are attempting to rectify the situation with their web-hosts. Until that is resolved, if you want to check out the site you can do so via their Facebook page, linked above. 

ABOUT THE GROUP.

Before launching into their methods any investigations specifically (which I won't do today, as it would make the post way to lengthy) its worth seeing what PINK have to say about themselves. Here from their site in their own words. (Note: I've not pasted this directly from their site as it is in a horrible pink font that is really difficult to read!)

"All of our evidence is  true, factual and never altered in anyway!  If there is ever a doubt of authenticity it is never posted.  Everything is attempted to be debunked to the fullest before we ever consider it to be paranormal!  Most of our orb activity will have several dust particles as well.  We will always Make sure you can tell the difference!  Remember not everything is proven to be a haunting on our end..... "

Good to know they don't tamper with their evidence, but that doesn't in itself rule out misattribution. 

"A lot of our evidence so far is about orbs!  We know the "orb" controversy is out there in the paranormal investigators world.  We are aware most are dust particles, bugs, carpet fiber, outside elements and etc.  We try to claim orb activity with it's own lighting, color, own direction of travel, change in speed of movement and most definitely are coming across what is called and ectoplasmic orb or twirl!  We also are finding some orbs will even change shape and have captured some with starting of manifestations. No not all orb's are paranormal and are not claiming every orb to be..."

The acknowledgement that many orbs are caused by dust particles etc... may SEEM like a positive, but its followed by the claim that the team can tell the difference between orbs generated by dust and those generated by spirit. This amounts to little more to me than "trust us... we're experts. We'll tell you what to think." Also it demonstrates that the team is more than willing to jettison rational explanations on a whim. It is quite possible for dust and other air borne particles to rapidly change direction, all it would take for this to occur is a relatively minor change in air current, there wouldn't even need to be a change in the immediate vicinity, the door or window opened elsewhere in the house, effects of air-conditioning, the warming or cooling of the house or objects within it are enough to alter air currents. This is known as Brownian Motion and is well understood.

The change in colour is due to the effect of Moire patterns and imperfections on the camera lens, the change in shape likely due to truncation of the initial shape due to it moving as its image is recorded on CCD. Again these are effects that are well known to photographers.

The suggestion of materialisation of faces in the orbs, certainly would imply something paranormal in origin, the problem would be assessing whether was materialisation, or simply pariedolia. The human brain has evolved in such a way that it can make sense of random data, forming patterns. The seeing of faces in clouds, Jesus on burnt toast and maybe faces in orbs, are simply the visual manifestation of this tendency.

I'll be quite honest, my heart sank when I read "A lot of our evidence so far is about orbs..." orbs are just so well explained. A great deal of the paranormal community are now rejecting the idea of orbs, they are done and dusted (HAW HAW!).

The rationalisation of some orbs as natural phenomena and others as supernatural in nature, is the file-drawer effect in full-swing with a sprinkling of the "no true scotsman fallacy" for good measure, it seems to me. I can find no other method of distinguishing between the two causes given and certainly no acknowledgement that velocity, colour and shape changes can be naturally explained too.

Methodology and bias. 
I searched PINK's site to try and find some greater indication of the research methodology used. The most information I found was on a page called "Spiritual Warfare":

"As paranormal researchers we are very conscientious and professional about preparing for an investigation.  I know for us it’s at least a day and a half process!  That is just preparation to go into an investigation.  We will save the whole process of how we do an investigation for another time!"

There is then some information about the checking of equipment, and the kind of details that the team record such as weather conditions etc... While I commend this attention to detail, and it certainly offers more insight into the conditions that surround the investigation, its major significance must come in comparison to previous "happenings" at the location. So if an anomalous noise is being heard when there is high wind, or an apparition only appears during periods when  the sun is in a particular position or with a certain amount of cloud cover, these details become more relevant.

Also there is no mention of taking a base-line measurement of the qualities which are recorded during the investigation. For example, in one of PINK's investigations we are told there is a change in temperature in one room from 72^0F to 89^0F. While this seems like a significant rise in temperature without a base-line reading we have no idea whether this is anomalous or simply common-place for this room. Other factors such as the room's dimensions, geographical placement and position in regards to heating and cooling systems in the house. Its also vital to know how the measuring equipment was used. For example, a laser thermometer records the temperature of the surface upon which its beam is reflected by. If this is a surface with pipes running behind it, or an outer wall this can lead to extreme drops and rises in temperature.

Interestingly, in that particular investigation, the team offer a rational explanation for some of one the child's experiences. They determine that EMF Hypersensitivity maybe responsible. The problem with that is that is that EMF hypersensitivity is a phenomena that is as unproven as ghosts and spirits! In an attempt to offer a rational explanation they have fallen back on pseudo-scientific rubbish!

Continuing with the "Spiritual Warfare" page reveals that PINK paranormal have a potentially disastrous bias when it comes to the conduct of their investigations.  The name of the page gives it away really. The team has an extremely Christian outlook, this is bound to introduce bias into the investigation if you are approaching the phenomena as a Christian. This would seem to be the case as the team conduct an opening and closing "prayer" before and after an investigation. Remember that this information was considered more important than laying out an actual methodology for the investigations.

The Opening Prayer:

"Saint Michael the Archangel, Defend us in battle Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray And do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, By the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits. Who wander through the world for the ruin of souls.  Amen..."

The closing prayer:

"In the name of Jesus Christ, I command all human spirits to be bound to the confines of the cemetery.  I command all inhuman spirits to go where Jesus Christ tells you to go, for it is He who commands you.”  AMEN" 

In addition to this the team advise "cleansing ceremonies"  and various new age practices as protection. Its a pot-pourri of superstitions and beliefs essentially. What worries me about this is it confers a definite lack of objectivity, PINK seem to know what they are looking for or what to expect before they even enter a location. The null-hypothesis simply isn't a factor. PINK aren't going in to look for anomalous events, they are looking for confirmatory evidence of previously held beliefs. Is it any wonder they find it?

This bias is never more evident than in this piece of advice from PINK to their team members:

"Do not ever go into an investigation thinking nothing will or can happen.  Treat every aspect with the potential!  This is keeping yourself prepared for the unexpected!"

This serves to create an atmosphere of suggestibility amongst the team. Never a good idea if you want an objective investigation!

Code of conduct?

There is plenty of rational advice on the page, but much of it is justified by superstition. take the warning not to remove objects from the site of an investigation:

"Do not ever take an object from a haunted location home with you!  You may bring home more than just the object home with you."

Rather than focusing on the issue of spiritual attachment, shouldn't the message here be "Please don't steal from our client's homes or places of work."? That would be the responsible message surely? The message relating to drugs and alcohol is equally frustrating. Not concerned with the image this misconduct would project upon the group, or danger of irresponsible behaviour as a result of consumption, PINK decide to warn that alcohol and drugs increase the risks of possession!  

I do have to question how responsible PINK actually are. I can't find any evidence of anything relating to a code of conduct on their site, I've discussed this on our Facebook Page at length. If you are a team going into people's homes, or anywhere as a group actually, you need a code of conduct to protect yourselves and your clients.

Often the first thing listed on said codes of conducts is maintaining an air of professionalism at all times, even if you are a hobbyist team. That means no horse play or fooling around. Unfortunately PINK's site features an entire section devoted to such mucking around! I could not access this as its password protected, but if you want to keep it private, why risk your air of professionalism by admitting it exists at all?

A quick scan of the equipment PINK uses reveals the usual suspects. EMF meters, audio recorders, Frank's Box.... All pretty standard for paranormal investigation teams. The methods and uses of all this equipment is pretty questionable, many teams simply don't know how to use their equipment properly, and the suitability of these means to "detect ghosts" is highly subjective. One could say that as this equipment has never yielded any results, so why use it? Its probably rather churlish to protest these methods as paranormal groups in general do use them.

One piece of equipment I can specifically object too are dowsing rods.  While all the above listed items maybe of no use detecting the supernatural at least they have been shown effective at detecting SOMETHING. All the dowsing rods have ever successfully been shown to detect is signs of the ideomotor effect in the hands of the operator. Much like the use of ouija boards, table tipping and mediums, there is absolutely no use in using an unverifiable method to detect an unknown quantity.

So that's the team, and their methods, from the best information I can gather. The team bio's section of the website is pretty lacking in information. From what I see they don't have a medium or conduct spiritualist communication methods, which is a plus. 

Conclusion. 

The Good.

The team don't seem to engage in highly subjective spiritual methods of gathering evidence.

A brief look at their investigations, reveals that the team collect a great deal of information of environmental circumstances surrounding the investigation. It would be better if very were to add some context to this, by telling us if these conditions match those under which the proposed supernatural incidences occur.

The Bad

The team need to rectify the situation with their invalid security certificate. Even if it means changing hosts. You could have the world's most definitive proof of the paranormal and it wouldn't matter. People get a security notice then navigate away. 

Pink need to consider their position on "orbs", at the moment they certainly don't have justification that some orbs are natural and exactly what skeptics say they are, and others are paranormal. The attributes they use to make this distinction are also explainable using well known effects amongst photographers.

PINK should be careful not resorting  pseudo-scientific explanations, and passing them off as "rational". For example: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity may sound nice and "sciencey" but it is as unsupported by evidence as any paranormal phenomena.

The team need to institute a code of conduct. This will reassure client's that their cases will be handled sensitively and with professionalism. Also it will ensure members know what is expected of them.

Client's interviews should include as much about environmental conditions, lighting conditions, etc... as possible. These should be the conditions the investigation is conducted under, as closely as is viable.

Get rid of the drowsing rods. Can't find water, can't find oil, can't find ghosts. Period. 

PINK need to be aware of the effect of suggestibility in their investigating team. D not warn the team to "expect anything" as it primes them to expect "something". If they believe they are going to have a paranormal experience, they probably will!

Team should be told as little as possible as occurrences in the location before the investigation. This again relates to suggestibility. If they are told where in the locations to expect occurrences, then the psychological effect of this may well cause the experiences.  

The Ugly

The most worrying thing about PINK is they clearly seem to have decided that ghosts exist and the purpose of their investigations is to collect evidence of this. That completely negates the idea of the null hypothesis. If you enter an investigation with the intention of finding evidence of the paranormal you will find it, however mundane. 

PINK's seeming strong Christian tone introduces a strong bias to any investigation carried out. It will seem to confirm their previously held beliefs. Any religious beliefs should be kept separate from the investigation. At the moment, PINK are making their religion a central part of the investigation, via practices such as opening and closing prayers. This removes the objectivity from any findings.

We desperately need to know more about PINK's methodology, do they collect base-line readings for example? How the team could of considered a "spoofs" section more important than this boggles the mind.

 Future reviews.

Now I suggested that PINK offer "the best evidence" they could muster, they have been hinting at the fact that they have some very solid evidence from a recent investigation. On Monday morning this appeared on their facebook page.

In an upcoming blog, I'll take a look at this evidence hopefully. Barring this I'll look at another investigation in depth, to get a better picture of the methods PINK are using and what they consider evidence. This will give me a chance to examine individual methods in more detail.