Ever come across a post or a story on social media or elsewhere proclaiming that science or scientists have "proven" some element of the paranormal? Often there is legitimate research behind the claim, but it's been twisted by tabloid journalists and bloggers so much that the end story barely reflects the original source.
Case in point.
I came across this post recently on paranormal Facebook page "The Haunted Informer". Naturally it peaked my interest. For any study to reach such conclusions it must have been incredibly wide-ranging, either that or the headline was complete hyperbole. I wasn't surprised by my findings, but it presents an interesting case study of what happens to a legitimate piece of science journalism when it passed through first tabloid filters, and then the filter of a paranormal hobbyist news site. Hopefully, this should demonstrate why the resulting audience is being deeply misled with regards to how and why studies such as this are being conducted.
To do this, I traced the story back from the report on Horror Movie Blog through the source it cites to, from what I can see its first appearance on the internet. I'll "play it back" chronologically showing what was chopped, added and altered at each stage. Links to the relevant papers and studies in dateline placed under sub-headers. I will give each stage a score that reflects how close to the primary source the article is.
End-of-Life Dreams and Visions: A Longitudinal Study of Hospice Patients’ Experiences (Kerr, Donnelly, Wight et al, 2014) published in JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE Volume 17, Number 3, 2014. I'm not going to delve too deeply into the study itself, but there are important details about it which any report should probably at least touch upon.
I'll score a point for each of following criteria, I'll remove a point for any significant additions that aren't alluded to in the primary source.
The purpose of the research. What does it set out to investigate?
Who is conducting the research?
The methodology.
The number of subjects.
The variation in the subjects interviewed. Age, gender, ethnicity, etc.
The location in which the study was conducted. The period of time it was conducted over.
The results of the study
Any significant limitations.
Conclusions reached
Citation of correct sources, i.e: primary source.
Fortunately most of this information is available, as with most scientific studies, in the paper's abstract, reproduced below, so any journalist or blogger worth their salt could easily access this and assess without a aptitude for reading such material and with little to no background knowledge.
As standard, the paper lists any significant limitations with the study.
"There were some limitations to the current study. Many
patients were already experiencing ELDVs at the time of
initial enrollment, making it difficult to analyze the time
course of this phenomenon. Limited research staff and the
dynamic nature of a hospice inpatient unit (e.g., frequent
death of potential participants) also made it impossible to
approach every eligible patient. A portion of the patients
experienced dementia or delirium as well as ELDVs; however,
only three dream events were reported by patients with
dementia. Future studies should more fully control for delirium,
utilize a more comprehensive questionnaire, and interview
patients who are less proximate to death to capture
the phenomena as they emerge or change. In addition, the
interrelation of delirium and ELDVs, especially in the last
few weeks of life, should be investigated further,"
They could have highlighted some further limitations. Any findings of this study only applied to terminally ill patients receiving palliative care. The research is carried out in one location so its highly subject to cultural bias of the subjects involved which is likely to shared. Therefore it can't be extrapolated to all people in all situations. The likely reason that this isn't mentioned, is it's a given really.
The first thing to note is that both the study and the paper are clear that what is being discussed is dreams or visions there is no indication of anything supernatural. Its isn't even implied.
Additions to the previous source
Quotes from the authors which obviously aren't in the paper, which aid the reader's understanding the the study and the processes involved. There's a good reason for them to be there, after all this isn't an abridged paper, its journalism.
Newswise is a press release service and news wire for journalists, therefore this is probably the first port of call for most journalists. Unfortunately its probably as deep as most journalists will probe. This means that significant errors or omissions here will likely be replicated in subsequent reports. The report is exactly the same as the source above. Its not clear to me which article came first, I'd say its pretty clear that both sources either received the same information from each other or the same press release from Canisius College. Obviously, as this is the case, the word count is also the same.
Therefore, the score is unchanged.
Score: 8/10
On this basis, there's no legitimate reason why any of the following articles should score less than 8.
Cited Source: Not Given, likely to be above News Wise article
You'll probably be unsurprised to learn that it's at this tabloid stage that the major omissions and additions are introduced. It's no coincidence that up to now there's been no financial imperative to push "hits" or visits to the articles. None of the previous sources had advertisers to pander to. The Metro certainly does.
The first major change: The title of the article. The titles of the science source and the journalistic source were pretty much the same, "What dreams may come: End of life dreams may be comforting" and "What Dreams May Come" respectively. Now the title is slightly whimsical, and the decision by Newswise to drop the second half of the title makes it pure whimsy and less informative, but it's likely this is the title of Canisius college's press release. But that's a small sin when compared to the Metro's chosen title: Almost ALL dying people are ‘visited’ by dead friends in their final days, study finds.
Clearly. this isn't what the study says, the experiences of 66 people (or 58 if you consider the subjects who actually complete the research) all receiving strong pain medication within a hospital setting, in the Western world, in one city, one hospital, cannot be extrapolated to THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. The researchers themselves attest that this is a small sample size something Rob Waugh, writing the Metro article never mentions, indicating he never bothered to check the findings of the original paper.
Another addition is that of a ghostly picture (opposite) laughably titled "Ghost?", likely, when coupled with the deeply misleading title, to fool those who spot it on their newsfeeds or on the Metro's home page into believing this is in some way a paranormal story, which it clearly isn't.
The Metro's word count is also vastly reduced compared to the previous two articles, standing at just 139 words. To put this into context Waugh has trimmed 60% of the News Wise piece, the result being the omission of several aspects that are vital to the accurate reporting of the research. It's telling that the Metro manage to keep one of the only elements that even slightly suggests a supernatural element to the study. Obviously. this is robbing the following quote of the context that these are heavily medicated terminally patients here:
"Many patients said the visits ‘felt real’ – and that visions involving dead friends and relatives were the most common."
So what does the paper actually say about the occurrence of "visions" of dead relatives?
"The categories included deceased friends or relatives (46%), living friends or relatives (17%), other people (10%), and deceased pets or animals, living pets or animals, religious figures, past meaningful experiences, and other content not listed (singly and in combinations, 35%). Note that the total percentage is greater than 100% because multiple responses could be recorded for each event (e.g., deceased friend/relative and living friend/ relative in the same dream)." (Kerr, Donnelly, Wight et al, 2014)
This really brings into sharp focus how poor Rob Waugh's reporting is here. Perhaps almost all of patients involved in the study experienced visions and dreams of dead relatives, but these this still accounted for less than half the total number of experiences. Also. the focus of the paper was not to ascertain how common these experiences are, but what effect they have on the patient's comfort level. Clearly Waugh didn't read the paper or completely failed to understand it.
Here's how the Metro stacks up. Not pretty.
Score: 3/10 But wait, let's make our adjustments for the addition of a hyperbole loaded title and the supernatural aspects. 1/10. Enter the Blogosphere: HMB (Nadia Vella) OCTOBER 31, 2015 11:02 AM
Cited Source: The Metro (26th October 2015) Oh Boy!
So the first change that should be noticed is the switch of the photo from Ghost? used by the Metro to an image that should be entitled Ghost! The image used reflects Vella's attitude to the story. You'll notice it reflects nothing of the actual paper. There's a ghost not a vague dreamlike image, no hospital setting, not a terminally ill patient but a soundly sleeping child.... at least the image chosen by Waugh demonstrated some ambiguity. But its due to his manipulation of the story that Vella has concluded that this is supernatural in nature.
As for the other changes... well there aren't any. Vella actually has the nerve to blatantly copy and paste the Metro article and still credit herself in the by-line. Jesus, I know she's only a blogger, but have SOME integrity! She doesn't change so much as one word, she then links to her "source" the Metro! It's not your source you moron, it's your exact article with a different photo!
Score 1/10 minus 1 for changing the photo, minus 1 for being a complete hack -2/10
Sigh.
You have to pity the research team that conducted this study. By the time their years of hard work reaches the general public its so warped by ignorance and click baiting, sensationalism and bad journalism that its hardly recognisable. Think of those 66 people who took part in this study back in 2011. They spent precious moments, their last indeed, taking part in a study to help us better understand perhaps the most unifying and fundamental aspects of our existence. Did they deserve that sacrifice to be sullied?
The ultimate irony in all this can be summed by the sentence taken from the well-written paper that Vella and Waugh were probably barely aware even existed:
"Despite the value of such experiences, patients, families, and clinicians report their reluctance to openly discuss ELDVs for fear of ridicule and doubts concerning medical legitimacy" ((Kerr, Donnelly, Wight et al, 2014)
This fear is hardly going to be alleviated whilst serious studies such as this are being manipulated into paranormal click bait, the public's perception of these studies won't change if they see them reported in the Metro's "weird news" section, or on a blog that promotes the existence of ouija board demons, ghost sex and shadow people.
I came across this video posted on We are Paranormal Investigators facebook page and several other paranormal sites and pages, and you know I like a challenge. Tony is a representative of LaxTon Ghost Investigations Sweden, in fact he is one of the teams' founders according to their site and claims the following video is the best evidence of paranormal activity the team has ever collected.
So first of all take a look at the video below. Watch on full screen from the very beginning, watch the marble. You'll see its moving when the video starts "rolling". Rewatch it a few times to get an impression of what is actually going on.
Here are some screen shots which make the movement clear. Distance of marble from the edge of the paper in image 1 at time (t=0) delta x (0)= 3 units.
In the second image at time (t=1) the marble has moved by three gridlines across the screen delta x (1) = 6 units. Some of this increase is accounted for by an increase in the zoom on the table. By comparing the radius of the tables in both images we can measure the increase due to this factor.
The radius of the table in image 1 is 22 units. In image 2 its more difficult to see but I approximate it to be 26 units. So the size of a unit in image 2 due to zoom is 1.18. Using this to account for the change in distance.
1.18 x 3 = 3.54. So the marble would be roughly three and a half units from the edge of the paper if the only change was due to zoom. This leaves the total change in position across the screen due to movement as 2.46 units.
So we know the marbles moving. "So what!" I hear you cry. "This movement could still be because of a ghost. After all if this was due to natural causes, surely all the marbles would be moving."
Yeah, but there's a clear rational reason why only this marble moves. Take a look at the shadow in the next picture:
The paper or plastic mat that the marbles are placed on is clearly curled on one edge. The marble placed closest to this edge is subject to a greater upward force than the other marbles, its also placed on a slope. Its going to roll.
So what does all this tell us? Is there a lesson here, or am I just showing off?
The lesson is, that its vital that paranormal investigators properly assess their data before making over the top grandiose claims, if this is the most convincing evidence you've ever come across I dread to see the evidence you rejected. This gentleman and his team should have carried out the same analysis of the video I did. It isn't difficult, and if they couldn't do that they should have took it to someone who could before it was brought to the public's attention.
This leads me to banging an old drum.
The paranormal field, whether you consider it a hobby or a serious pursuit desperately needs peer review. Debunking things like this should occur within the community. I have to wonder if the rest of the group are a bit embarrassed, by putting this out with such hyperbole their member has potentially caused the team's whole catalogue of research to be written off.
There's an analogy for the whole field there somewhere in all this.
Oh yeah, I know. Its in danger of losing its marbles.
I am really sick to death of paranormal groups and pages on facebook sharing the following meme:
Could you picture a more condescending and contemptful image? It immediately sends a smug message. "We know ghost exist.... don't you? Oh dear, how ignorant of you."
Infuriating. Can you imagine skeptical groups sharing the same image captioned "My face when someone tells me they believe ghosts exist." That group would quite rightly be labelled douche bags.
The latest group to share this meme particularly irritated me. Ghost-Hunters-West-Vlaanderen-Belgie, claim to be a "research service". I'd question what kind of research they are conducting, because sharing this image distinctly gives the impression this team have already made their minds up. Ghost exist and they can be communicated with. "How dare you question this concept? How ignorant of you to believe that the absence of empirical evidence suggests the contrary!"
Perhaps instead of taking this condescending and arrogant attitude, this "research service" should present some of the research they've been conducting, because there isn't a shred of it on their FB page, which mostly consists of commonly shared memes that you find on any common paranormal page. Where's the research guys? You must have some really convincing stuff to be so confident.
A visit to the team's website likewise yields little to no actual research. In the gallery section of the site can be found one snatch of supposed EVP and two sub-fifteen second videos, of which I have no idea are what they are meant to show. This isn't research. Its clear that this group is going into people's homes judging by the statement from their home page, clumsily translated below, and doing the usual paranormal investigation shtick judging by the videos and audio in their gallery.
So where are the write-ups of these investigations? Where is the collected data?
I decided to check the teams "reviews" on their facebook page, in the hope that some previous clients have perhaps left some comments or even data from investigations conducted in their homes by the team. What I found was unsurprising and indicative of the paranormal scene on social media at the moment.
The reviews section almost entirely comprises of 5-star reviews left by other pages and groups, either requesting return "likes" or thanking the team for their "like". If you are adverse to back-slapping skip the next few images:
This mutual love in continues through almost all the 54 reviews. There isn't a single comment from someone the team helped and crucially, not one person asking where the team's research is.
This is paranormal unity for you. Its a like farm. "You like my page... I'll like yours. You ignore the fact I offer nothing in terms of evidence...."Rather than "unity" the paranormal field should take a leaf out of the book of mainstream science. Peer Review. Several groups are doing this, and well, but they are treated with hostility in most cases.
This is leading to an area of interest, a field, where ideas are no longer challenged. This unity and mutual support is also leading to a smugness amongst some of these groups. They shouldn't be claiming to do research, for them the conclusions have been reached and there are hundreds of other groups with thousands of members to back them up!
Hooray for unity!
Get ready to see that arsehole meme a lot more. Perhaps the greatest irony about it is that it features the portrayal of one of pop-cultures' most famous scientist/inventors. I wonder what Tony Stark would actually think about the methods used by ghost hunting teams in general?
Anyway. Here's what I've been posting in response to the meme:
Sure, its a bit juvenile to respond in this way, but it makes me feel a bit better about being condesended to.
As for Ghost-Hunters-West-Vlaanderen-Belgie, they just got their first one-star review on FB asking why there's no trace of any research on their page, why its a carbon copy of almost every other paranormal page on FB with recycled memes and posts. Hopefully they take notice, echo-chambers aren't the most interesting or challenging dwelling places.
Actor Rafe Spall, about to appear in a ITV drama about paranormal investigator Harry Price, recently made some not too favourable comments in an interview with digital spy regarding mediums and in particular the psychic industry:
"In research for this, I watched a lot of mediums - Colin Fry, Derek Acorah, Mystic Mary - and it raises many interesting ethical questions... Because obviously it's not real. It's manipulation and it's make-believe. But they're not messing with people, they're not frightening them, they're giving them comfort. The people who come to these shows are in desperate pain, delirious with grief, and they need some comfort. But... they're paying for tickets, and these mediums are making - as Harry Price said - a fat living preying on bereavement. It's the misery industry - you're making money out of people's misery, which is very questionable.They're giving people hope and when people are in agony, who am I to say that they shouldn't be doing it? But do it for free. Use your 'powers' to connect with the afterlife pro-bono, then we're all good. Go and do a normal job [as well] - something else that is befitting of monetary reward."
Of course this comment hasn't been met with rapturous applause by all sections of the internet. In fact some believers, and hopefuls, in psychic abilities are livid with Spall. Much of the criticism was levelled at Spall's lack of expertise in the field. These examples taken from the Society of Psychical Research's facebook page
The problem with comments like this is two-fold. Firstly we have no idea how much research Spall did for the role. Its possible that he has been looking into this for some time. Sure he only name checks three psychics, but should we reasonably expect him to remember and list every single psychic he has read about or watched? Of course not. He is simply using these names as an example of the kind of mediumship he is discussing. The second, and more troubling problem with attacking his lack of expertise, is he's not actually wrong! The "psychic industry" does profit from the bereaved. From the outside, to an unbeliever, this seems like a heartless practice. Believers should find Spall's comments troubling, because that's the conclusion many of us have come to after years of investigation into psychics and mediums.
I decided to look into commenter Chris's claims of research into the physic abilities and found a write up of one of his tests in "Psychic News". The write up exemplifies many of the problems that ocur when mediums and believers conduct their own psychic testing. The test he performs is some what interesting, but ultimately not performed under anything close to strict conditions, as he concedes himself in the piece. One massively glaring error in his protocol being, the psychics and non psychics are placed in seperate groups. They then proceed to "read" the others in their group. There's no potential for blinding here the psychics know they are in the psychic group and rate their readings higher. As this rating is done by tallying the amount of correct statements, which is highly subjective, there's nothing to prevent bias. Likewise, the non-psychics are aware they are in a non-psychic grouping, and are not expecting correcting readings, therefore not subjecting the reading to the same psychological manipulation that make "genuine psychic readings" seem accurate to the sitter.
I may well look at the test in greater detail over the next week or so, but its not from malice I say this, sorry but this isn't research. Its mucking about in the village hall. Twenty years of this aren't going to overturn hundreds of years of legitimate research in fields such as psychology and neuroscience which offer rational explanations for psychic phenomena.
Getting professional psychics to engage in legitimate testing is nigh-impossible. The big-names simply avoid controlled conditions like the plague. Semi-professional and amateur psychics, many of them "shut-eyes" who legitimately believe their own claims, that have engaged in testing fail to show positive results under tight controls. Positive results that are attained disappear in replication with said controls in place. See here and here for example.
But does the discovery of fake psychics through such testing logically lead to the conclusion that all psychics are fake? Blogger Ian Wardle says no, making this analogy:
"If we lived in a world where £20 notes didn't exist then it is likely there would also be no counterfeit £20 notes either. There would be no purpose in counterfeit £20 notes since no one would be fooled by them. However in our world where £20 notes exist and they are in demand, then inevitably there will be many counterfeit £20 notes. Similar reasoning applies to psychics, albeit to a lesser degree. That is to say in world "a" there will be fake psychics, but it seems clear to be that they will not be as numerous as fake psychics in world "b".
The major problem with this analogy being: we actually see real twenty pound notes. They massively out number the counterfeit ones. We use the qualities of the real twenty pound note to distinguish between a real and fake one. We can't use the qualities of a real psychic to identify a fake psychic, as we simply don't know of any real psychics.
He continues
In addition they sometimes use the argument that since every psychic they have heard about turns out to be a charlatan, then it is reasonably, via induction, to infer there are no genuine psychics. But this is rather like a person flicking through a wad of £20 notes, carefully removing the counterfeit notes which are fairly easy to discern with the naked eye, and then declaring that since every note they've examined so far is counterfeit, it's reasonable to infer they all are!
But Ian, our wad of psychics would contain only counterfeits, as that is all we would know of, we wouldn't flick though it at all, we'd discard it. It would be reasonable to infer all £20 notes were fake if no one knew of a real one!
By definition the term "fake twenty" would be meaningless in a world with no real twenties!
Arguments such as Ian's are common place and amount to nothing more than claiming that we can't dismiss the existence of psychic abilities until we've tested every single person, and parrot, who claims to possess them. Imagine this blanket refusal to accept the null-hypothesis in another field of science, should physicists still desperately search for the luminiferous ether for example? You can thus bin any of the advancements in physics made since the mid-eighteen hundreds in that case. Which come to think about it is roughly the time of the birth of spiritualism when the Fox sisters first foisted this psychic deception on the world.
Until some actual plausible positive results regarding psychic abilities are born from legitimate and well designed studies then we simply can't accept the phenomena exists, meaning we would have to conclude Spall is correct. But there's the ethical aspect to consider too.
Does consultation with a psychic help the grieving person come to terms with their loss?
I'd argue not, but I'm aware the the grieving process is a complicated thing and I'm not a psychologist or a grief counsellor.... but neither are most mediums. Can they be sure that their proclamations about dead loved ones don't damage the grieving process?
"The first reaction to learning of terminal illness or death of a cherished loved one is to deny the reality of the situation. It is a normal reaction to rationalize overwhelming emotions. It is a defense mechanism that buffers the immediate shock. We block out the words and hide from the facts. This is a temporary response that carries us through the first wave of pain."
Does it not seem like the words of a psychic, though they maybe comforting at the time, allows the grieving to linger in this stage of grief perpetually? This could well explain why so many people habitually revisit psychics and mediums, its to keep the denial strong, to ward harsh reality away. Its a cruel comfort indeed in that case.
And to charge for this comfort, especially if based on falsehood is callous.
A beautiful lie is a lie non the less.
Until evidence is provided otherwise every word Spall said seems correct. Believers can baulk all they like. Shut-eye psychics can deny it and claim to help, the sad truth is those individuals aren't just deceiving the grieving, they are deceiving themselves too. Those who offer these "services" for free may be excuse of monetary exploitation, but the potential for harm is the same.
The British tabloid press are at it again. Virtually every tabloid paper in the UK has reported on this piece of footage from Honduras breakfast TV show First Edition over the last 24 hours.
Take a look.
So is this "chilling" or paranormal in any sense?
No. Not in my opinion. What we are seeing here is the natural outcome of a glass resting on a glass table with a speck of moisture , or even moist air trapped underneath it. The coefficient of static friction being very small between two glass surfaces even without the presence of water or moist air.
Arnold Anderson, retired professor of frictional forces explains the effect:
"When a wet glass is placed on a smooth surface, a ring of water first makes a seal around the bottom edge of the glass. Then, as the glass continues toward the countertop, air that is under the glass bottom is compressed. Under ideal conditions, this small volume of pressurized air is able to support the weight of the glass. The water around the bottom edge of the glass functions as a seal to prevent the air from escaping. For a short time, the glass is floating on the surface water, and moves with almost no friction. A different, but related behavior is possible with a container that has a very smooth, flat bottom. Here, the water can not escape quickly, and temporarily supports the glass on a squeeze film of water alone. This is much like an ice skate, which melts the ice under the blade, so the skater glides freely on a thin film of water. The first case is like a hovercraft, where a large fan pressurizes the air under the craft so it can move freely over water or even smooth land. Technically, the glass uses what is called a 'squeeze film' bearing to temporarily support the glass. Hovercraft are supported by 'externally pressurized' bearings. Ice skates employ 'self-lubricating' bearings. These are all ways to reduce friction, using lubrication."
So what sets the glass moving? Could be one of two things, or a combination of the two, heat from the studio lights causing the fluid to expand, or the presenter disturbing the air around the glass and setting it in motion. Notice that the glass begins to move as the Presenter moves his hand past it, the initial movement is very slow and the glass speeds up as it moves towards the middle of the table. It finally stops when the moisture is exhausted. It would take very little force to get the glass moving as the static coefficient, the resistance against sliding, is so small.
Examination of the surface doesn't immediately reveal the presence of liquid. But all that is needed here is moist air, or condensation on the outside of the glass.
More tabloid stupidity then. As mentioned in a previous post, I'm not linking to any of the stories, click-bait shouldn't be encouraged.
Remember David Rountree, paranormal investigator who is almost certainly NOT a quantum physicist? Well he has a theory. Paranormal activity, ranging from ghosts and demons to Bigfoot via UFOs and everything in between are caused by Wormholes. And he wrote a deeply flawed paper on the topic for Research gate in Feb 2015.
Before I get on to the paper, Roundtree's profile at Reasearch gate is worth checking out, pictured below left:
It shows Rountree is no longer claiming to have a Phd in quantum mechanics, but is now "working towards a physics doctorate". Despite this his youtube channel, and other profiles, still proudly boast "quantum physicist" as a title (below)
The paper and theory in general suffers from major faults, which I'll attempt to show here:
1. Faulty Hypothesis
Rountree's hypothesis is as follows:
"Information is emerging into our environment from points unknown; this information takes many forms, for audible, Electromagnetic, visual and environmental fluctuations.As such, there must be a conduit to allow this information to emerge. In science, the choice for conduits that could allow such an exchange of information are limited. In fact, I only know of two possibilities, the localized bending of time space that would allow dimension bubbles to occur, allowing the overlap of other dimension combinations that create a momentary alternative reality and Einstein Rosen Bridges or simply Wormholes"
Part of the problem with this is Rountree's definition of environment and points unknown, if a source for a sound is unknown is it logical to conclude that it must of arrived via some conduit? Does an unknown sound justify hypothesising other dimensions? Of course not. To assume an external source, as external as another dimension no less, one would have to first prove that there isn't a more mundane source, this would be a paper in itself. Rountree bypasses this, meaning that everything that follows is built on a faulty presupposition.
Generally a hypothesis should ask a question, commonly "if I do this will this happen?" Rountree gives us a conclusion instead. His hypothesis is a statement of fact and as such, isn't a hypothesis at all.
Later in the paer he describes how this may link to paranormal entities:
"While it may be rare for
physical matter to pass through a partial opening, it may be possible for a human or
animal to pass through a complete opening unscathed. This may explain
cryptozoological creatures, ghosts, and UFOs that appear and disappear seemingly at
will. In order to develop a theory, we must design a series of experiments to determine
what is at work to create the Paranormal Event Horizon. "
2. Rampant plagiarism
Rountree then gives a definition of what wormholes are, lifted uncredited mind, from Wikipedia. Take a look at the comparisons:
Rountree:
Wiki:
Rountree:
Wiki:
Rountree
Wiki:
Even the equations used in the paper are lifted wholesale from Wikipedia, this is clear from the font they are presented in:
Roundtree:
Wiki:
Rountree:
Wiki:
I'll be frank, Rountree you are disgraceful. Also, either deeply stupid or massively arrogant? Did you honestly believe that no-one would notice this? Perhaps not, as your "paper" has only been viewed 100 times in nine months, several of which views are yours I suspect and at least two are mine.
You took all all of that from one page too! I didn't even have to search Google, it was just FUCKING THERE! You didn't even change a single word.
You shouldn't be part of any community, you especially shouldn't be allowed to claim ANY scientific credibility. You are a fraud. You know what would happen to me if I was caught plagiarising at my University? I'd be thrown out. Unequivocally. Fucking gone. Bye-bye.
3. The actual claims don't stand up.
So its worth pointing out something here, which I'm sure everyone has already grasped, we simply don't KNOW if wormholes actually exist. In multiple sources Rountree states that they are an outcome of Einstein's theory of General Relativity. This simple isn't true, they are allowed by the theory, that's all. They aren't mathematically forbidden.
Laughably, in the following interview Rountree claims that wormholes MUST exist because Relativity is so well proven by its applications in Nuclear physics. The mass-energy equivocation used in this branch of physics is an outcome of SPECIAL relativity not GENERAL relativity! Now, the distinction between the two may not be clear to many layman, but this is a man who claims a PhD in quantum physics!
General relativity is well proven by things such as satellite communication and GPS systems, and evidence provided by the measurement of gravitational lensing and redshift, but wormholes are not intrinsic to the theory. They result from some of the associated maths.
Physicists also speculate that if wormholes do exist they are highly unstable and incredibly small, as Rountree opens his paper with Hawking quote, its only appropriate I continue with one:
“Down at the smallest of scales, smaller even than molecules, smaller than atoms, we get to a place called the quantum foam. This is where wormholes exist. Tiny tunnels or shortcuts through space and time constantly form, disappear, and reform within this quantum world. And they actually link two separate places and two different times.The tunnels, unfortunately, are far too small for people to pass through — just a billion-trillion-trillionths of a centimeter..." Stephen Hawking
This Gives Rountree two problems: size and stability.
What about stability? At current estimates a wormhole wouldn't even be stable enough for a photon to travel though it, not even light can traverse a wormhole. I don't care how spry Bigfoot is... he isn't coming through.
There is a loop hole to this, physicists speculate that cramming a excess of exotic matter into a wormhole may hold it open. Exotic matter would the matter with a negative mass that actually is repelled by gravity. The problem being that we just don't find exotic matter, the only known is negative pressure generated by the casimir effect.(Certain tetra quarks have also been discovered these are labelled "exotic matter" as they lie outside the standard model of particle physics, they don't have a negative mass however). If one could stabilise a wormhole this way, the likely hood is the introduction of traditional baryonic matter would immediately destabilise it. Physicists also speculate that quantum fluctuations could open a wormhole but this would severely limit the radius of the wormhole to a Planck length. So how small is small? 10^-33 cm in radius. So small that 10^40 of them could nestle on the surface of a proton. Good luck squeezing through that Casper.
So wormholes are highly speculative at the moment, and Rountree proposes that exotic matter, also speculative) is necessary to expand the wormholes and stabilise them, throw in the fact that Rountree bases much of theory on alternative worlds, and you have speculation based on speculation.... Its turtles all the way down. And even if we were to accept the existence of worm holes, its some leap to start linking them to the paranormal.
4. Many paths are paved with bullshit. Evidence from NDE and OBE
Roundtree claims in his paper:
People who experience NDEs or OBEs report being drawn to a long dark tunnel with
light at the other end.
Those who make the journey report a new world on the other side.
So he believes that some how consciousness can separate from the body and travel down a wormhole, by definition he must also believe that a wormhole opens every time a person dies, or nearly dies. This consciousness can somehow view the resultant journey and world encountered, depsite not having... well eyes. Also Rountree is taking the shape of a wormhole hyper-literally here: the reason a tunnel shape is described is that is something that is fairly easy to picture.
There's Tom Baker having his NDE. Look its shaped just like 'is 'ead mam!
"Oxygen starvation can cause both tunnel and darkness experiences. The reason for this lies in the structure and functioning of the blood supply of the retina. The macula is the optical center of the retina; it has the greatest blood supply, while the flow of blood to the retina decreases with distance from the macula according to the inverse square law. Yet the oxygen consumption of each part of the retina is much the same, so oxygen starvation will cause failure of peripheral vision before causing total visual failure. experiments with oxygen starvation in human volunteers prove this fact. This is why tunnel experiences occur only in NDEs caused by oxygen starvation, while toxins and poisons cause a “pit experience” before causing failure of vision. So oxygen starvation explains why not everyone has a tunnel experience during an NDE. Oxygen starvation also explains why the tunnel experience is not a true component of the NDE, but is instead a manifestation of the cause of the NDE (Greyson 1983)" (Worlee, 2004)
As for these "other worlds" there's no reason we these can't be the hallucinations of a dying brain, or a living one in OBEs. Here's a question in this regard why do Christians always encounter Christo-centric religious figures during NDE, and Muslims Islamic ones? Could it be that NDEs are culturally informed hallucinations perhaps?
We must rule out these rational explanations before we start speculating about souls zipping up and down hypothetical tunnels in spacetime!
Evidence from EVP and EMF
Rountree states:
"EVP appears in a room with no apparent source during a paranormal event."
Rountree believes that EVPs are almost exclusively caused by electromagnetic fields, something I would contest, but let's grant him that. This this in no way proves the existence of wormholes. EMF are ever present, we are surrounded by them. If EVP is a phenomena caused by EMF we could never conclude that the presence of EVP is evidence of wormholes. Also in his hypothesis Rountree refers to "audible fluctuations" both this and several comments Rountree has made in interviews available on Youtube, lead me to believe he isn't clear about sound not being an electromagnetic wave!
He must realise that actual "audible" frequencies could not traverse the Einstein Rosen bridge, as sound needs a material to propagate through, such material would, as stated earlier, collapse the wormhole.
Again Rountree is basing his proposed hypothesis testing on wild speculation.
Don't make me angry... evidence from gamma rays....
Through out the paper and in various interviews Rountree makes frequent reference to Gamma rays and recording them, presumably using a Geiger counter as his quoted values are given in Millrads, a traditional unit of measurement for that instrument.
During the two documented experiments in the paper Roundtree reports increases of up to
350 mR Hr^-1, which is high I'll concede, a normal yearly dose of radiation would be approximately 3100 mR Yr-1 in the US. It's not anywhere near as great as Rountree asserts in the interview I linked to above though. There he states that the background radiation he received equals that recorded after Hiroshima. Unfortunately for Rountree, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between Rads and Millirads (a thousandth of a Rad). According to New Scientist August 25 1977, those 1 km from the Hiroshima blast received a dose of radiation in the region of 400 rads.
Not to worry David, you're only out by a magnitude of 10^3.
Rountree also gives no indication how he can presume to have identified the radiation spike as gamma rays, such a process would require the use of a spectrometer, or one of the various detectors mentioned here.
Brilliantly in the above interview Rountree claims that Gamma rays are not the most energetic form of electromagnetic radiation, he claims X-rays are more energetic. A fact that the host of the show actually contests, but Rountree sticks to his guns.
source Wikipedia
That's fine as he has a far more fundamental issue with detecting gamma ray bursts from a wormhole.
Dave attests that the gamma ray bursts should evidence due to anti matter/matter annihilation occurring at the "event horizon" of the wormhole:
"Gamma radiation is present at the onset and throughout. This is due
to the annihilation of sub atomic particles, specifically "Exotic Matter" (Matter with
a negative mass) that is a requirement for a stable wormhole condition. This in
turn ionizes the air."
Except annihilation shouldn't occur here because exotic matter is not antimatter! The key differences being anti-matter acts just like matter, exotic matter does not, anti-matter has the same relationship with gravity as matter, exotic matter should not.
Dave has more anti-matter matters.
In the following interview he describes the emission of anti-photons. The major problem with this is that protons are their own anti-particles... in the strictest sense, there are no anti-photons. This is partly because photons are electrically neutral, neutrons also are electrically neutral, but as they comprise of an arrangement of quarks which AREN'T neutral, there is an anti-neutron.
Evidence from Ionic variations Rountree attributes large variations in Ion concentration in the atmosphere, to the increase in radioactivity which can indeed be a cause.
"Positive and Negative Ion Count dramatically increases sourced from the
paranormal Event Horizon"
Leaving aside the fact that Dave is assuming a paranormal event is taking place and attributing qualities to it here, are there other potential causes of dramatic changes in ion concentration? Certainly an excess of electrical equipment can cause increased ionisation, could Rountree be taking base line readings before all his equipment is moved in? Also use of certain heating equipment can cause ionisation. Rountree concedes that heating systems are present during investigations.
Rountree makes quite a big deal about large concentrations of both positive and negative ions, this is not extraordinary, large pockets of negative ions will attract pockets of positively charged ions, and these pockets will not be static. They will move with air currents and be pulled around by fields generated by electrical equipment.
Evidence from Gravity fluctuations and time shifts
Rountree gives no indication of how he measured "gravity fluctuations" yet claims to have recorded them.
"Gravity Fluctuations - Gravity has minute fluctuations along three axes during the event in the Event Horizon....
As such its difficult to comment on how he achieved this, also its difficult to conclude whether any fluctuations were significant as Rountree fails to cite any data, he simply states changes occurred. The easiest way to measure such fluctuations I suppose, would be to constantly measure the force acting on a object of known mass, I'm not sure that an experiment of such a nature could be sensitive enough to measure minor fluctuations, assuming that major fluctuations would be cited.
With so called time shifts Rountree states he is using a Naudin Time Shift Detector, researching the said device leads be to believe its pseudo-scientific at best. Laughably the manufacturer does seem to even know the best operating parameters for the device: See below.
If time-dilation due to gravitational effects is as easy to measure as two crystal clocks it makes physicist's endeavours flying caesium clocks around the world seem like a wasted effort. The first of those experiments, conducted by Hefele and Keating in 1971 registered a variation of 57 and 273 nanoseconds with an error bar of between +/- 10 and +/- 7 nanoseconds. This minuscule difference resulted from an elevation of 10km above sea level. More recent experiments have placed atomic clocks at altitudes of roughly the same as this and yielded similar results, although prescion has improved.
Rountree placed his clocks a metre apart, with no altitude difference.... make your own mind up.
Evidence from Cold spots
"The blob of cold was measured at 41 degrees F, while the ambient temperature
readings were consistently 74 degrees F. The Blob of Cold was not stationary, but
rather moved about, changing direction several times (five in all). No air currents were
measured in the room, and while cold air was leaking in from outside, the temperature
differentials were confined to near the windows and doors. Some convection currents
were present, but again these were caused by the heating system, which was on"
Rountree never tells us exactly how this "cold blob" is measured, was he using heat sensitive cameras or thermal imaging? Or was he using a traditional laser thermometer? If it was the later, then there is no way Dave could have tracked his "blob". Laser thermometers measure the temperature of what ever surface they fall on. If the pointer is moved from an internal wall with a heat source to an external wall or window, there's your drop in temperature.
Also "air currents were measured in the room, and while cold air was leaking in from outside" how does Dave propose this air was coming in then? There must be an air current. Also if there were convection currents then there WERE air currents.
"temperature differentials were confined to near the windows and doors" This is exactly what we would expect from poorly insulated windows and doors. Let's take a look at the effort Dave goes to to properly insulate a room during an investigation, not much it seems.
Also if Rountree is proposing particle annihilation at the edge of a wormhole this should result in a dramatic INCREASE in temperature as energy is released. Why would a fundamentally exothermic reaction suddenly become endothermic?
Because that is what it would NEED to be to fit Rountree's conclusion. Evidence from "vile vortices" and psychic powers
At this point in the paper Rountree abandons science completely. He tells us in no uncertain terms that wormholes exist, and these have been mapped! OK, what's your paper for again?
"Other researchers have discovered parallel phenomena that may be related to this
condition. For example, Ivan T. Sanderson proposed based on his documenting of
disappearances around the world, that there were a series of vortices located at regular
intervals around the world."
Sanderson's work has been heavily criticised, much of it rests on anecdote and salty sea dog tales. Author Paul Begg examined Sanderson's claims for Unexplained magazine and found many of the ships he lists as being lost of "vile vortices" were simply victims of poor weather conditions, he also found that Sanderson and others had changed the location of other maritime accidents to better fit the theory (Begg, "Tales from the Bermuda Triangle"reprinted in Out of This World: Mysteries of Mind, Space and Time (Caxton, 1989))
Rountree continues
"Another example that is well known is the fact that researchers for many years have
documented and mapped locations of vortex activity in Sedona, Arizona"
Its a "well-known fact" is it. Wait, let me call some one.
"Hey Sasha!
Sasha...Stop looking for wormholes! Yeah, we got 'em!... No... it wasn't Hawking.... it was Rountree.... Rountree... David....
No, he's not a physicist, he's a douche...
YEAH that's him,,,,HA! Yeah, he is...
Hey, what you doing with that flask?
Oh....That's crazy....
Bye!"
There now they know.
Someone should also inform the Nobel committee.
Look, I don't care what paranormal investigators have "mapped", people used to map dragons over dangerous areas of sea, hell... clearly some people still do. That doesn't mean we should accept dragons existed. Evidence would be good.
" In a recent experiment at the Shanley Hotel, Tracy Ray, and Eric Risinger both
experienced extreme feeling of well being while in the event horizon of a detected
wormhole."
A) We can't detect wormholes. Sorry Dave.... physics is not lagging behind you.
B) In science we generally don't deal with subjective "feeling", they are too messy with too many variables. That's something that many paranormal investigators simply have never got their head around. Feelings aren't evidence.
C) Many physicists suspect that the major difference between a black hole and a wormhole is that wormholes lack an event horizon. If an object with an event horizon appeared in front you, you simply wouldn't need gamma ray detectors and crystal clocks to see it... it would be black.... light can't escape from an event horizon. This is the factor which makes black holes so difficult to see in space, you'd have no trouble spotting one opening in a hotel room though!
" While
both of these individuals have certain gifts, with Tracy being a full blown PsychicMedium-Empath,
and Eric has some degree of psychic ability, other non-gifted team
members on the peripheral of the event noticed a feeling of peace and calm."
She isn't a full blown psychic, and he isn't part psychic, you simply can't claim that because its utterly unproven.
More subjective personal experience
"Phantom Smells, odors and aromas:
Low frequency high gain EMF can affect human perception. This has been documented
by numerous medical, psychological and physiological studies and by the military. It is
presumed that this may be a contributing factor."
Citations? I'm aware of research into the area but its hotly debated and heavily criticised, as is Michael Persinger's "God helmet" which research Rountree does cite. Criticism of this can be found here. A major flaw with said research being complete failure to replicate Persinger's results.
Even if we grant that EMFs can cause changes in perception, why would this go anyway to proving that such fields are generated by wormholes?
"Visual Stimulation:
Aside from frequency stimulation of the perception, another factor is in play. If indeed
we are dealing with a wormhole, there is a theoretical condition known as the
holographic boundary effect. This has been documented at the University of Amsterdam
as outlined in the following paper: http://dare.uva.nl/document/185109
Projections can occur on this holographic boundary to create visual stimulation, i.e. a
holographic projection or hologram"
But Rountree's experiments don't report visual stimulation, this is only relevant if we recourse to the paranormal paradigm of the visualisation of ghosts, which is unproven. Its shoe horned in here as Rountree believes it strengthens the correlation despite his actual research showing no data in this regard. Why was this phenomena absent from the wormholes Rountree purports to have detected?
"ORBS:
Cold plasma is formed as a result of the gamma radiation ionizing the air, creating a
fourth state of matter, plasma. This plasma is cold plasma, held stable by an
encapsulating low frequency electromagnetic field. The cold plasma emits light in the
UV spectrum"
Rountree needs to demonstrate how his orbs are in anyway different than orbs caused by natural objects such as dust. He simply states this is plasma, cold plasma at that which is generated using highly directed lasers on super cooled materials, to strengthen his correlation again.
Rountree's Conclusion
"Based on our studies and independent confirmations by other researchers, we now
have a theory on the paranormal that makes predictions and can be documented. In
conjunction with Thomas Fusco's Theory of Supergeometry, we believe that we have
finally mapped out the effects of a paranormal occurrence, and have provided
conditions to monitor and document said events"
Yet nothing Rountree has described is paranormal. This is a bold faced assertion based on nothing more than what the paradigm for paranormal occurrences is held to be. Rountree has gone out and used the same methodology every ghost-hunting team uses under the guise of detecting wormholes. He's then found exactly the same data he would of found on a traditional paranormal investigation and used it to link ghosts and wormholes. Its staggering.
" IF the human consciousness survives death, and this is
based on NDE's (Near Death Experiences) in which the subject has been dead for
longer than 7 minutes and all brainwave activity has ceased) where the subject passes
down a long dark tunnel to emerge in a world of brilliant light with all their dead family
present, then a wormhole would match the experiences related. Additionally, this
universe would be made up of pure energy."
That's one hell of a big "if", especially seen as there is no evidence of consciousness surviving death. Following this Rountree descends to laa-laa land. It sounds lovely, but this is the conclusion of a scientific paper! Oh and additionally its made of pure energy... just 'cause.
" I would further
postulate that the energy that forms the consciousness would use these same conduits
to enter the womb/fetus prior to birth. Thus, energy conservation is preserved."
Just because a theory doesn't violate an important physical law doesn't mean its valid. Also if this is the case why is Rountree investigating dusty old houses and not maternity wards? Why aren't there major "vile vortexes" over every hospital, this is, by Dave's theory where most wormholes open after all.
My Conclusion
Rountree's whole premise in the paper is built on a bedrock of totally unproven presuppositions, which range from the plausible but hypothetical to the outright nonsensical.
Plausible
Wormholes- hypothetical but mathematically sound. Some physicists would say the logical extension of General Relativity, others would describe them as a result of leftover or or loose mathematics in the theory. As wormholes are speculative so to are their properties. If their detection is so easy, would Fermilab or CERN not of accomplished this before a paranormal investigator with limited resources?
Alternative dimensions- hypothetical and highly speculative. Most physicists would maintain that if these alternative dimensions DO exist we should not consider them in the manner presented in science fiction-they may be curled up spatial dimensions, not worlds populated with Bigfoots.
Exotic matter-matter with a negative mass that therefore experiences repulsive gravity.
Highly unlikely
NDES and OBES represent a separation of mind and body. There is simply no evidence for this Cartesian duality, neuroscience and psychology offer rational explanations for such phenomena.
Pseudo scientific measuring techniques such as using crystal clocks.
Persinger's God helmet research.
Alternative universes are pure energy.
Batshit- no evidence what-so-ever
Vile vortexs
Psychic abilities
A wormhole opens any time a person dies or is born-if this is the case why are Gamma ray levels and massive gravity fluctuations not registered around hospitals frequently?
Demons and ghosts use said portals to escape other dimensions.
Alternative universe you are sucked into upon death is the same one that your family and friends also were sucked into. Lucky that.
Above all this there is a fundamental non-sequitur in operation here, Rountree has assumed the properties of wormholes to be the same as the properties of alleged paranormal phenomena when neither has been proved to exist and therefore measured. When the science doesn't fit, such as particle annihilation producing energy not absorbing it, this is ignored to maintain the correlation. His whole theory is based upon a correlation between two non-existent metrics. For the paranormal aspect it builds on decades of unverified results and associations. Even it Rountree had conclusively demonstrated detection of wormholes this in no-way links to paranormal phenomena and in no way shows it to exist.
Rountree also fundamentally misunderstands science and even basic measurement. His motodology is sloppy and poorly documented:
Confuses X-rays and gamma rays
Confuses rads and millirads
States existence of "anti-photon"
States that wormholes have event horizons, which is not consensus but also punches a fatal flaw in his methodology.
Fails to clearly state methodology-omits vital information regarding certain pieces of equipment
Fails to once state a margin of error for collected data.
Confuses anti-matter and matter with negative mass
Fails to realise that matter annihilation would create heat
offers subjective "feelings" as evidence
Shoehorns data into per-existing paranormal associations.
Failure to consider other causes for collected data
This is the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure that those more qualified than I could find more errors.
Then there's the plagiarism.
If you think me unfair to hold Rountree to such exacting standards consider that it is he who is claiming this as a legitimate scientific paper. He boasts in interviews that in years to come science will acknowledge his work. He is placing himself on a pedestal. If he wants to claim legitimacy in science to those either too gullible or too sycophantic to challenge him, then he must submit to peer review.
Maybe based on this review he should stick to his "Shamanistic practices" instead of deceiving followers and friends with important sounding concepts used in incomprehensible ways. Larry De Paul, a commenter on Facebook page Paranormal Bullies, summed up Rountree's science obsession and the man himself, better in one line than I could in a whole blog:
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
Another addition is that of a ghostly picture (opposite) laughably titled "Ghost?", likely, when coupled with the deeply misleading title, to fool those who spot it on their newsfeeds or on the Metro's home page into believing this is in some way a paranormal story, which it clearly isn't.
Another addition is that of a ghostly picture (opposite) laughably titled "Ghost?", likely, when coupled with the deeply misleading title, to fool those who spot it on their newsfeeds or on the Metro's home page into believing this is in some way a paranormal story, which it clearly isn't.
So the first change that should be noticed is the switch of the photo from Ghost? used by the Metro to an image that should be entitled Ghost! The image used reflects Vella's attitude to the story. You'll notice it reflects nothing of the actual paper. There's a ghost not a vague dreamlike image, no hospital setting, not a terminally ill patient but a soundly sleeping child.... at least the image chosen by Waugh demonstrated some ambiguity. But its due to his manipulation of the story that Vella has concluded that this is supernatural in nature. 
