Remember Mark Vernon, the self-proclaimed paranormal detective? I wrote about him back in August last year with regards to his ongoing quest to prove various historic buildings in the UK are haunted. What was most striking about Vernon, a self-professed paranormal investigator was how unimpressive his "evidence" was. If you don't remember that perhaps you'll remember one of Vernon's recent tabloid appearances. These include "Ghostly Monk" In the Sun (18/06/16), a "spectre" following him around a stately home in the Daily Mail (09/08/16), the "ghost of Jack the Ripper" in the Mirror(06/09/1) amongst others.
We'll come back to the "Jack the Ripper" case shortly.
It's clear that Vernon has created something of a cottage industry in producing paranormal evidence for the tabloids. It's pretty clear that Vernon is enjoying the limited fame and financial gain that providing the tabloids with these stories provides as he's back in the local press today, the Wakefield Express 27/01/17, the article describes Vernon's capturing what he describes as "something impressive, big and fast". He tells us:
“There had been some strange noises coming from the cellar. “The lady who lived there couldn’t understand what was happening. “I can detect paranormal things and as soon as I arrived I knew something was down there. “I spent some time sat in the corner waiting and watching. “You see me get up and walk towards the camera, as I was going to replace the batteries and the ghost comes out from the wall behind me. “It’s quite impressive what I got on film. Whatever it was, it was quite big and fast."
Upon watching the short video, it's immediately obvious what the cause of Vernon's apparition is. Follow the link above and you'll probably immediately see the cause for yourself. As Vernon walks to the camera to replace its batteries he's holding a lit cigarette in his left hand.
As Vernon bends down by the camera, his "ghost" moves across the bottom from the right of the screen to the left. It's clearly just smoke from his lit cigarette!
Likely the easiest thing I've ever tried to explain. It's that simple. Vernon tells us he can "detect paranormal things" I suggest he sees paranormal things, without a hint of critical thinking, in the most mundane of occurrences, making him a terrible example of a paranormal investigator. He may well "detect paranormal things" but I wouldn't trust him to detect his nose with both hands. Frankly, the fact that Vernon frequently sits smoking in front of his recording equipment, a fact various videos on his Youtube channel attest to, whilst looking for evidence of the paranormal implies to me he doesn't give a damn about possible misinterpretation of environmental factors or contaminating areas he's investigating or footage he's recording.
In fact, I mentioned above the "Jack the ripper ghost" Vernon showcased in the Mirror last year. I think that this phantom can also be attributed to cigarette smoke, check out the image below in the upper right-hand corner.
In Vernon's account of how the Wakefield Express footage was captured, he describes being "called in" to the property by a lady. Street view of the location reveals that these are private properties, terraced housing, not public buildings. This means that members of the public are putting faith and trust in Vernon. If these people are vulnerable or afraid, Vernon is using the assumed authority a title like paranormal investigator brings to persuade them their homes are haunted. Some may be comfortable with this, others not so much. The "Jack the Ripper" case I've alluded to already above, gives a striking example of this. The lady in question called Vernon in after years of being afraid in her own home, she tells the Mirror:
"The ghosts have been here for as long as I've lived here - the man that used to live here told me they were here before me too. One in particular is very violent and aggressive. We've had priests and exorcists and all sorts over the years, but nothing makes a difference - so I've just learned to live with it."
She also describes living alone after her partner suffered an accident that left him paralysed. If this lady is as vulnerable as she seems, Vernon isn't helping her by describing photographs of cigarette smoke as "anomalies" and promptly selling the story to the press. Nor is he helping her when he makes aggrandizing claims like this about the house:
"It's the nasty ghosts I really like to go for - Gaynor has countless ghosts, but one in particular is really violent.... I don't deal with fakery but I have been to Gaynor's before and I can say 100 per cent she is genuine (yeah, but are you mate?-SB).... I feel sorry for what she has gone through, I have never seen a house with so much activity going on....This is one nasty ghost. It could be Jack The Ripper, it could be a relative of his, or it could just be a spirit telling lies."
Investigating public spaces is one thing, but Vernon is clearly not displaying the care and professionalism one should expect from someone conducting an investigation in a private residence. The fact that right-clicking Vernon's image of the supposed physical harm this ghost allegedly did to him in his lady's home you get the photo's tag "PAY-jack the ripper ghost" tells you almost everything you need to know about Vernon's interests in the case. Almost...
I actually think Vernon, enjoys the attention these stories bring him as much as the limited financial reward. His drive to get stories published is clear from the sheer amount he has sold to the press in the last year alone and the relative ease at which the "evidence" he presents is debunked.
Frankly, Vernon is going to continue to ride this paranormal gravy train regardless of the fact that the exposure he receives in the tabloid press gives paranormal investigators a bad name, and it's a reputation that's already severely tarnished. Nor is he stopping to consider the potential harm he's causing to the individuals who become aware of him due to his media exposure and call him in to "investigate" their homes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Since I began looking into the methods various groups use to investigate the paranormal, I've found more and more that there are some very common (and very annoying) errors that crop up frequently. These are aside from groups claiming to be "scientific" in nature whilst still using fundamentally unscientific practices such as ouija boards and table-tipping. Both of which I'm sure I'll tackle at some point. The mistakes I'm highlighting here are far less pronounced and far more common.
I've taken an example from Facebook of a brief report from a paranormal investigation group based in South Africa called Paranormal Research Investigations of Pretoria. I am at pains to first point out, this is in no way a personal attack on PRIP. I have no animosity towards them, I simply wish to offer some constructive criticism.
Part 1
First let's look at the information they offer about themselves on their Facebook page:
The immediate problem I see here, is while its clear that PRIP are trying to help people, and they are at least offering their services for free, they make irresponsible claims about the techniques they use. To clarify no paranormal investigation technique has ever been "proven" because none have ever provided conclusive evidence that ghosts actually exist.
I'm not sure that PRIP are actually clear what would actually constitute "evidence" of the paranormal. This is something we'll return to a little later.
PRIP declare a concern with their client's well being that is admirable, but I have to wonder if they have fully considered the consequence of stating categorically their homes are haunted.
One last problem I have with his opening statement is that there is no reference to what methods PRIP actually use. Sure, we are told they are proven, but we can't check this for ourselves can we? This then has to be considered a completely unsubstantiated claim, and fundamentally misleading.
Anyway, on to the actual report. Now in fairness, this is admittedly a very brief account. But it fundamentally lacks a lot of vital information and contains much which is completely irrelevant and tells us absolutely nothing of value.
1 Ok, so we start with an overview of what the client's have been experiencing, that's great. Here's the problem with what is given. It's mostly all subjective. There may be a multitude of reasons why a location may "feel" unwelcoming that are in no way paranormal in nature. Terms like a "dark" room, and a "room of revenge" aren't helpful, for a start, what the hell to they actually mean? And how exactly does one go about measuring these things? The answer is, you can't. Therefore they have no bearing on the actual investigation. What would of been more helpful, is the time, dates, locations and conditions at the property when the sightings of experiences occurred. Basically as much information about these times as possible. Where is this information? Was it even collected at all?
2. This is pure speculation. There is no supportive evidence that paranormal activity increases in proportion to proximity to a grave-yard. To have evidence of such a causal link would require evidence that ghosts exist in a measurable quantity. We simply don't have this as of yet.
As for the speculation about the old-man with the oxygen tank. Where has this come from? If its part of the history of the house then that isn't mentioned. Is it a apparition that has been seen? It seems plucked out of thin air.
The idea of collecting history of a location may seem like a good idea prior to an investigation, but it can actually be counter-productive. This is because it gives the team an idea of what to expect, with the more suggestible members of the team there is a fare chance this will directly effect what they experience.
3. Here we return to the idea of suggestibility. So the investigators had a "feeling" of being "unwelcome" the conclusion is clearly made that this is a result of some presence in the house, but could it be a result of members of the team being aware that this is something the occupants of the house have experienced? Could it be a result of the conditions which the investigation is conducted in? Is this a result of suggestibility on the part of the investigators?
Lights out?
One thing I was able to glean through the above Facebook comment was that the investigation was conducted in the dark. This is something that irks me. I see no reason to conduct an investigation in the dark, most ghost sightings don't occur in the dark, teams should be looking to replicate the exact conditions in which a particular sighting occurred, also operating purely in the dark is impractical and often dangerous even with a decent torch. The only reason I see for the propagation of this practice is the number of groups merely seeking to replicate what they see on ghost-hunting TV shows. In these the only reason for the practice is to artificially heighten the sense of drama and create an air of suggestibility.4. This comment really annoyed me. Thus far there is nothing to suggest that the occurrences in this home are supernatural, to go further than this and suggest that the house has a history of occult practice is ludicrous! Based upon what grounds? This is especially vexing when you consider this groups supposed sensitivity to their clients! Clearly these are people who believe in such things and are scared of them, to put this on them is deeply irresponsible. Especially when it is based on pure speculation!5. Who made these claims of a "definite" dark presence? Again this seems worryingly subjective, with nothing in the way of corroborative evidence. Further more, it gives the definite conclusion that the team has already decided categorically what form of supernatural entity inhabits the house.Part 2
6. As you can see there is no contemplation of a rational explanation here. This is a face and that is all there is to it. One might expect a stunning piece of photographic evidence to accompany this assertion. Unfortunately this is what we are offered in a later post.
That isn't really convincing is it? Its not even a great example of pariedolia. A magnification doesn't really add anything either. In fact, look at that cup. Did it possibly contain hot liquid? Is it possible we are looking at steam here? Or possibly condensation? Surely this needs to be ruled out before we conclude "demon"?
7. So the team go into possible explanations for this activity now. But there isn't one single rational explanation offered for any of the proposed phenomena. Every single explanation is based in the supernatural. Its almost as if this team hasn't considered for a moment that this ISN'T something supernatural! I've got to ask them. do you ever go into an investigation with the null-hypothesis in mind? Also the team clearly made up of members who are extremely vulnerable to suggestion and atmosphere. Why else would they leave without attempting to find rational explanations. I'd say this strikes me as a team that aren't particularly professional, but that maybe a little unfair without assessing any of their other work.
8. Again the history offers very little perspective to what is going on presently, especially when its post-hoc speculation based upon current events.
9. See above. What is the casual link between grave-yard proximity and paranormal activity, can we rule out that this proximity isn't causing an atmosphere of suggestibility to the clients. The propagation of other tales of hauntings and the like is only going to amplify this suggestibility.
10. These things simply can't be considered evidence of something supernatural when there seems to have been no attempt to even address perfectly rational explanations.
These mistakes, assumptions, failure to consider rational explanations, non-acceptance of the null-hypothesis, an over-reliance on subjective "feelings" and attempts to replicate the faulty methods of TV show ghost hunters are not the exception in the paranormal investigation community. They are the norm. That is why a system of peer review is desperately and urgently needed. Standards won't get better until the resistance to this is eliminated.
