A word of advice to paranormal investigators.

Once again I find myself looking into the behaviours and claims of a paranormal investigator and find a web of false claims of scientific credibility. Delving further I find the actions of a person so egotistical that they believe they are able to offer a client mental health advice and see no issue in telling a person with such a condition they are being attacked by a demon. 

If you're a paranormal investigator who thinks that adding the word 'science' or 'scientist' to their own title or investigation group...

STOP IT!

More importantly, if you believe you have the expertise to deal with a person with mental health issues...

STOP IT! 

Just stop. 

You may think it makes you sound cool and authoritative to claim to be a scientist, it may for a while. But it won't take long for some fucking arsehole, like me, to come along and start asking you awkward questions. It will happen. And if you block and ban me, someone else will come along. Finally, one of the big guys' will spot you. Someone with an audience. And your reputation will be shot.

Either that or your lies ill spiral out of control. You'll start off claiming to have vague 'science qualifications' and then you'll start to create a narrative. You'll get more specific and you'll create a lie that you can't handle anymore. Let's face it if you threw 'science' into your title, you're a fantasy-prone person. And people like this get carried away.

Either thing happens and you will lose all the credibility you ever stole, yes stole. Not just that, but what you did will hang around your neck like an albatross. People will discover you, then they'll quickly discover your past and drop you like an apple with a maggot in it.

Don't believe me?

Ask paranormal fuck-boy, David M Roundtree. In 2010 Roundtree was writing books about 'paranormal technology'. In 2014 he was a bit-part player in a TV show, Ghost Stalkers. Sure, it wasn't a runaway hit, but he was respected and did the rounds on talk-shows and podcasts. Could have even found himself on a new TV show. There's plenty of them around.

Now when you Google 'David Roundtree paranormal' the first hit you get is a blog post from No Blue Falcons exposing the lies he told about his military history (1), the second hit, a blog post from me exposing the lies he told about his scientific qualifications (2).

The trend continues down the first page of results. More Blue Falcons posts, more of my posts, a petition to stop him from appearing on paranormal programming in the future (3). There are only three 'pro-Roundtree' links on that first page, his Twitter account, his blog site and his Amazon book page (4, why not go and leave a review guys?).

He's a pariah of his own making. He started a lie and couldn't stop lying.

Of course, I could be wrong.

A chap on Facebook, PC Knickles, certainly thinks I am.

Meet PC Knickles. Not a scientist. Not a mental health professional.

PC, you will be unsurprised to learn, describes himself as a 'scientist' on social media. A paranormal scientist no less. He does this in a post in which he solicits followers for 'cases' for him to handle.

PC also operates a paranormal investigation group called 'Paranormal Science Investigations'. All of which strongly implies that PC has some form of scientific qualification. So I and several others including Alex Matsuto of the Association of Paranormal Studies asked.

Now, I'm sure that the drive of the post thus far has given you a good indication of the answer I received. But PC was remarkably evasive with his response. First, he directed me to his group page. When I put to him that there is no mention of his qualifications there, he directed me to his personal page. I found there is no mention of any qualifications there either. 

 

Remember, PC directly sent me here. I can only assume that he didn't believe I'd investigate further. When I put it to PC that none of his pages have any reference to science qualifications, he had quite an extraordinary response. PC told me that he believes he is fine to call himself a scientist as the 'Google definition' of scientists is "a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.". That is actually the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary (5).

I don't disagree with the definition particularly, the question is regarding where "expert knowledge" actually comes from. It also ignores what other people believe when you tell them that you are 'a scientist'. I don't believe that it is unreasonable for those people to expect you to have some academic qualifications.

PC has another justification for his claim, however, he believes that because he has been recognised for several 'key paranormal discoveries' he is entitled to make that claim. I'm not aware of PC's discoveries. In fact, I'd never heard of him today. I'd go further than that and say that I'm not aware of any 'paranormal discoveries' being made by anyone!

PC believes that this image entitles him to call himself a scientist? He claims it shows the 'pink energy' of a soul escaping a body at the point of death. I think it's someone's finger over part of a camera lens.

Capturing a finger over a camera lens does not make one a scientist. (PC Knickles) 

Whatever the case. That image in no way entitles PC to refer to himself as a scientist. He hasn't done the years of study that entitles one to claim the credibility that comes with that title. The fact that he thinks he does imply to me he is extremely egotistical.

It also implies to me that he is misleading his 'clients'.  Perhaps dangerously so.

And let's face it. If PC really thought that these things entitled him to claim that he is a scientist, he wouldn't have sent me on a wild goose chase looking for his qualifications. He'd have just fucking said it straight away. 
Worse still, I found some indication that PC isn't being exactly honest about the qualifications he does hold. His Facebook profile indicates that he studied 'Business Economics' and 'Law' at Havard. His Linkedin profile states that he studied 'Business' and 'music' and was only at Havard for a year.

Unfortunately, my concerns with PC and his dealings with clients don't end there. In the process of conducting this discussion with PC, I came across one of his 'clients' and found that he is engaged in extremely concerning practices.

The client, appeared on the thread to remonstrate with PC regarding the use of the footage he had shared. In addition to that, they claim that PC was not the lead investigator on the case as he indicated he was.

I'm not going to touch on the dispute with regards to who owns the footage PC used, what I will comment on is the disgusting way that PC talks to his client, plus the fact that he makes it very clear that he will only 'help' potential clients if they can pay his travelling expenses.

This may sound a bit unprofessional, but during the conversation, it becomes apparent that the client, in this case, has mental health issues and a severe disability. If PC was even remotely ethical he would have never taken his case. His client should be receiving professional help. Help PC isn't qualified to dispense.

Of course, that isn't going to stop PC from offering medical advice as seen below.

As well as suggesting that a qualified medical practitioner should listen to a paranormal investigator, he asks if his client is receiving 'Benadryl' for her mental health condition. Benadryl is an antihistamine. It is used for the treatment of allergies and hayfever.

The man does not have fucking clue. He doesn't have the qualifications he is strongly implying he does and he is taking cases that involve people with mental health issues. People he is not qualified to help.

There's definitely a pattern here.

PC. I hope you read this. I hope that other paranormal investigators read it. Claiming to have expertise that you know you do not have is bad enough. Getting involved with people who you know need care and attention from professionals is abhorrent.

You are going to hurt people if you go down this path. And ultimately, you're going to hurt yourselves.

STOP IT. 

References

(1) https://nobluefalcons.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/david-rountree-a-case-of-stolen-valor/

(2) http://skepticsboot.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-wacky-world-of-david-rountree-phd.html

(3) https://www.change.org/p/reconsider-the-con-david-rountree-of-any-and-all-events-publications-of-books-or-association

(4) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Paranormal-Technology-Understanding-Science-Hunting/dp/1450253563

(5) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientist

Don't get your Hamptons Caught: Part 2: The "app"ening?

The Daily Star and several other tabloids reported on 29th December, a story centered  on a photo taken by bus driver Trevor Tye, which alleges to show the ghost of Catherine Howard stalking the hallways of Hampton Court gallery, specifically the area known as the Queen's staircase.

The image was taken in an area called the Queen's Staircase, and as you can tell it's highly filtered to make it brighter. A less filtered version has actually been circulating the internet for some time. This version below was taken from Haunted Earth's Ghost World, the article is dated January 2014, but states that Trevor took the photo in August 2012! The tabloids waited for four years to jump on this "amazing" evidence. They must be desperate.

What has changed between the two circulations of these photos is Tye's story of the circumstances surrounding it's capture, He tell's the Star, etc.., today: "Trevor Tye, 45, had driven a coach-load of tourists to the royal palace but ventured in to get pictures himself while he was waiting." They quote him as saying: "I was very careful when taking the picture to ensure no one was in the room - the last thing I wanted was someone ruining my shot."

This wasn't Tye's story back in 2012. From the aforementioned web page:

"The photographer, Trevor Tye was told to leave afterwards by Hampton Court staff as photography is strictly banned. Whether the reasons are conservational (to preserve art from camera flashes) or commercial (to sell their own photographs), nobody can confirm." Tye replies to this: "the reason I was asked to leave was not because of that photo, it was because I entered a roped off area in the cellars....I took this photo on my way out of the palace.and I can confirm that it isn't a real girl reading as the area had no body in...i waited ages for people to leave before locking the door for few mins to take photo,"

How long could Tye have waited if he was asked to leave? Surely he'd have beat a hasty retreat?

Also the Ghost World article alleges there are two ghosts. The other stood next to the little girl. This second ghost was conclusively debunked almost immediately by a user known as Sir Edward. Funny how it's been dropped in the latest apdaption of the story.

Another thing interesting to note is that Tye is not just a coach driver, as the Star eludes, he also lists himself on Bark as a paranormal investigator.

Hmm... The website for his group Middlesbrough Paranormal contains a gallery of images of visits from supposedly haunted locations. Many of them allege to show evidence of ghosts or spirits, most of which are nothing more than common garden orbs.

This seems odd for a man who stated this in the Mirror version of the story:

"Unfortunately the vast majority of ghost pictures you see are faked so I am really pleased to have caught something like this."

This one struck me.

Now, I'm pretty good at spotting an image that's been produced by a phone application. And after quite some time searching I think I found the face on the left. 

Unfortunately, it's not terribly definite. The face in Tye's image could just be pareidolia. I would have been far more convicted if I'd found Tye's man in a waistcoat. So I searched Ghost World: Haunted Earth  to try and find more stories with a connection to Tye. I found one, containing this image, which Tye claims was passed to him by a fellow coach driver, Craig Cooper.

This I could find.... Well.... I had a friend who could. Thanks to Anna Hill again! It's from the image manipulation suite 27 Ghost Brushes. Here's the image anna found laid next to Tye's original.

What should be very clear is that Tye is a very clever and careful app user. He either places the image in the background and extremely small, or in the foreground and extremely faint. Does this mean we should immediately assume that Tye's Hampton Court ghost is from an app? 

Not Necessarily. But Tye certainly isn't above faking a ghost picture. Another possibility other than photo manipulation  is a staff member in period costume or a member of the general public similarly dressed. The internet is jammed with images of people in period clothes at Hampton Court, even traversing that particular landing, not like the image below. 

What about the lady below, she could easily by mistaken for a ghost if snapped from far away.

The figure does seem to be reading an information panel intended for visitors. Presumably, any ghost haunting the building would be slightly bored of this after hundreds of years. Members of the general public visiting in period dress would be far more inclined to read tourist information, I would suspect.

That's if this even is a figure at all. An extreme zoom reveals that the figure appears halved. This leads me to believe what we are seeing is some trick of the light, pareidolia fills in the gaps and viola. Ghost.

Likewise, a negative of the image furthers I believe, shows this isn't a full figure or, in fact, a figure at all.

So.... what's the answer here?

 I don't see any reason to suspect ghost. Photo manipulation, the person who took the image has form after all, an actual person in period dress or some trick of the light and our own inbuilt tendency to make sense from random data. I can't conclusively rule out any of these naturalistic explanations, and there are lot's of  other rational possibilities left to be dismissed, of course, this isn't how the tabloids work.

One interesting thing to note is that the tabloids that feature the story all refer to the ghost as a little girl at some point, and as Catherine Howard at others. Howard, who is alleged to haunt Queen's staircase, was 21 when she died. Hardly a little girl. When it comes to ghost stories, consistency has never really concerned the tabloid media. 

If anyone can crack this I'd love to hear from you. 

Personally, I think it's the ghost of Twiki from Buck Rodgers. There's quite a similarity and he is about the right height....

Learning to love constructive criticism!

Pet Peeve Time! I hate it when paranormal groups post "evidence" and then get offended when people come along and critique it. Take this group for example. The Supernatural Investigation Group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/supernaturalinvestigationgroup/). Snappy name guys! They posted video footage to their page showing "something" interfering with one of their investigations in the bedroom of a client's house.*

As you can see, the camera shakes a little, strands of a light coloured fibrous material flash across the right-hand side of the screen, and the camera jerks upwards and then downwards. Now, it looked to me like someone accidentally nudging the camera, and then readjusting it. My first instinct said a curious child, told under no circumstance to touch the equipment, getting a bit bold then trying to cover their tracks. This seemed logical as the bedroom was clearly that of a young girl's. There were quite a few toys, dolls and what looked like a play kitchen and a fairytale castle.

When I asked the lead investigator if this was possible, they said no. Their clients had no children. Unfortunately, they had previously given the client's name and a link to her facebook page, a mere click revealed, the clients in question do indeed have children. Five of them, including two daughters, with... LONG... BLOND... HAIR. When I put this to the lead investigator, I was kicked from the group, the video was swiftly removed and the following rather libellous post was put up.

Here is something else interesting, how did the investigator set up this camera then leave the room, with toys stacked against the door? The lead investigator told me there were no other entrances or exits to this room. Implies to me there was someone in this room all along.

Look, if you are part of a paranormal group, and you have "evidence" that you are so emotionally invested in that you prepared to lie to preserve it.... DON'T PUT IT FORWARD FOR CONSIDERATION. This will save butt hurt feelings all around. You can't expect everyone to share your complete lack of objectivity.

*Video reproduced for purposes of critical review.

** Unfortunately after this was posted implications were made that I was somehow viewing private information regarding people involved with this case. I can categorically state I have, at no point viewed anything that was not shared in the public domain, specifically Facebook. In addition to this, I only followed links provide by Deborah head investigator of this group. This demonstrates clearly how low some, by no means all, of these investigators are prepared to stoop to protect their evidence. Disgraceful!