Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

A while back, I was listening to Stephen Fry being interviewed on the CBC by Jian Ghomeshi and he made an interesting point... which I'll paraphrase here.

Although, no doubt, some of our readers may not know who Stephen Fry is (as such,) he's rather famed in Britain and has a large following worldwide... and you probably have seen him somewhere in something... his body of work is extensive. (I'm going to cheat and simply send you on to his Wikipedia entry if you wish to check in on him.)

The topic of "fame" came up in the interview and Mr. Fry, who's an AVID Twitter-er, pointed out that comments by people with a modicum of fame can be blown out of proportion... and that facilitates the loss not as much of privacy, but of the ability to react and behave "normally".

The "example" he gave was being stuck in a line at a pharmacy (chemist/"drug store") behind an elderly woman struggling with completing her purchase. (Counting out small coins and such...) Although everyone should be tolerant, the best of us can become exasperated and a bit "hrumphy"... and whereas I can do that and simply come off as a grumpy, rushed idiot at worst, if Stephen Fry did it, within hours it would be all over the online world and in tabloids that he, Stephen Fry, obviously hates the elderly and is a diva who wants instant service!

I am not famous... nor do I want to be... but there are people out there who read my writings... potentially too closely... so close, that often, I'm (apparently) not allowed a personal opinion or critique as it reflects on the groups I work on... and with some regularity, I'm called out because of speaking my mind.

This is not to say I'm sexist (not at all!) or racist (I actually have a painful aversion to racist folks that's landed me in several heated arguments against "hate",) or holding viewpoints that might otherwise be considered not terribly... "mainstream" or socially acceptable... and, as an example, the PSICAN General Information & Codes of Governance/Presentation does specify the public statements that amount to "hate" (which is defined in Canadian jurisprudence,) will result in anyone in the group being either disciplined or asked to leave... and yes, that WOULD include me... and Sue too!

No, it's not those things that get me (and Sue) in trouble, the "speaking" of my mind that usually initiates comments and notes chastising us, regardless of where it is or the context it's given in, are things like my personal aversion to "reality-ish" television... my dislike of overt marketing in terms of this study... any review of a television program/movie/musical offering... choice of server software, and things like this.

I have taken far more grief for critiquing (personally) media than I did for my early stance and work on orb photos! (...and the latter came with physical threats of violence back in the late 1990's!)

One of our friends (and a member of PSICAN and The Parapsychological Association,) said that as "stewards of PSICAN, some people believe that we cannot voice any opinions and must, as PSICAN strives to do, stay neutral and absolutely balanced at all times.

...he recognised this "viewpoint" of certain people as massively flawed.

Heck, as our (and it's been there since day one,) "rules" say...

5: PSICAN does not hold or express any corporate views. Any opinions expressed through its articles, papers, websites, or via other means are, therefore, those of the PSICAN member, investigator, researcher, or founder alone.

Which I whole-heartedly admit, I... um... "borrowed" (with an indefinite return date!) and adapted slightly from The Society for Psychical Research...

Basically, when reading through our "Rules of Governance and Presentation", it says something like, in a nutshell..

Sum Up Rule on This Topic One: If you're reporting a case or presenting an article or a paper through PSICAN that is *not* an editorial or opinion piece, you must stay as absolutely neutral as possible and point out all information without prejudice to any favoured belief or hypothesis.

...and...

Sum Up Rule on This Topic Two: You are ABSOLUTELY entitled to your own belief and opinion and can express said as long as it's a critique, editorial, note, or, in general, not a paper, article, or report.

...with the caveat...

Sum Up Rule on This Topic Three: Don't preach or profess "hate" (racism, sexism, or the like,) even in editorials, notes, critiques, etc.... basically, everything should be "hate free"!

I could add more to this, but read through things and you'll discover, that's the general rules in terms of writing and presentation on the site, in the groups, and even on this blog! (...although things like this blog, the message board, and even our Facebook group can be a little more open and a little more "wild West" as opinions are expected in those forums.

Now, aside from complaining about being very much the poor man's version of Stephen Fry "hating the elderly" (from a small few,) when I say things like I am not a fan of Apple Computer's business models, there is another point to this blog post... that's also been covered a tiny bit in my last two posts...

As I said, OF COURSE faith, belief, and general leaning towards one thought or another are not only allowed within our groups, it's expected! (Find me someone without an opinion! There is an old joke about cowboy hats, opinions, and something else... but it escapes me right now...) and we've ALWAYS allowed for it... only asking people to be as neutral as possible when presenting non-editorial stuff... and our crew has been and is exemplary in doing that...

...but...

Far too often, we come across people who can't separate their strong belief or faith from facts... "orb photos" being a perfect example... but I'll go one further with you, our dear readers...

Let's look at UFOs.

What are they?

What if I told you that they are categorically things that have slipped through another universe (or dimension)? Do you accept that?

Now, what if I presented work... papers... articles that went STRICTLY with that hypothesis as absolute fact and reviewed all cases with that... in other words, no matter WHAT the case, everything about it is "pan-dimmensional" ignoring the "ETH" (extra-terrestrial hypothesis,) or potential military test planes or even "mistaken identities". Is that good work?

...and yet, within not only Ufology, but cryptozoology and especially ghosts and hauntings, this is exactly what I see... presentations that knee-jerk to ghosts being ONLY based in the "DPH" (Dead Person Hypothesis) and also ardent parapsychologists that knee jerk against the DPH and only see it as a potential psi events. (Psi, in this case, being used to define some sort of "projection" using a psychical ability to manifest something outside of the human body that resembles a "ghost".)

Bigfoot can ONLY be an "animal" or biological entity... or are they?

Poltergeists are angry spirits of the dead... or are they?

UFO and alien encounters are absolutely only extra-terrestrial in origin... or are they?

It's that "Or Are They?" bit that's missing in so many people's work.

As stated, I completely and totally accept the idea that someone, in a note, or quick read article that's an opinion piece or based on "folklore", might swing their efforts in a particular direction and say something like, "The ghosts is that of the young girl who was spurned by her lover..." but in a proper academic article, and one that's inclusive, I want to see all aspects taken into account with maybe the words, "The ghost is reportedly the remnants of the girl who was spurned by her lover...". Even then, there should be a discussion of alternative hypothesis or thoughts on the matter up to an including everything from spirits of the dead to it being "nothing"... because if you accept that gamut of possibilities in terms of "what" it is, you're more likely to stumble on the truth either through elimination or by perhaps someone else spotting an argument either supporting or refuting potential explanations.

Basically, it's looking at all angles that shows neutrality... and advances the study...

Going back to the beginning of this article, being "neutral" in a critique or opinion is an oxymoron. "Opinions" tend to be one-sided... and up for rebuttal.

Looking back on the Facebook comments I blogged about below, how much further some might have been if instead of people promoting their own belief only as an argument, a genuine debate on their hypothesis ensued... and that was followed by everyone learning about the alternate views to their own.

Won't happen, though... because people have strong beliefs bordering on faith, no matter what the argument.

Debate is where opinion is important... as is critical assessments and even editorials.

Within an academic paper, however, opinion doesn't have to vanish... but it should be pushed back in favour of the evidence presented... on all sides.

That's neutrality in presentation... and yes, it can lead (much like a good debate,) to stronger insights from all parties.

I, and Sue, are proud to be a "stewards" of PSICAN... and we will be neutral in our work where it's needed because that's important.

By the same token, however, we're human and at last check, allowed to express personal opinions... and welcome others PROVIDED they understand that it could be up for debate as we do with our own thoughts.

Although this post has a personal message, I hope it strikes a cord on some levels with folks... because Stephen Fry doesn't hate the elderly... but he is, on occasion, grumpy and has places to go... and both his "professional" and "personal" beings are quite alright and acceptable!

PSICAN's Facebook Page has really picked up some interesting conversations of late... thanks mostly to Elvis Podvorac and Ian Topham really...

I'm going to do two posts on these... this is the second... it was spurred by who Mr. Topham posited...

Looking at Elivis's post on Orbs it got me thinking about why people think Orbs are Ghosts or spiritual energy or whatever and it reminded me of a forum question I once asked 'What Are The Absolute Facts We Know About Ghosts?' and I wondered what you guys would put on the list.

...which led to me giving a rare "short" answer to this question...

This question is why I tend NOT to say the study of "ghosts", but the study of "ghostly experiences" or "ghostly events".

Perception is everything...

What Mr. Topham knows... what we all should know... is that we really don't know all that much about the events/experiences/"creatures"(?) we call ghosts... no matter what anyone writes or even tells you!

We have snippets of things from various cases... we even have similarly perceived things happening to people... but beyond that, what is an apparition? Is it different than a poltergeist in any other way than just "appearance"? I could go on about Angels vs. Demons. vs. "Bad Spirits" vs. Multidimensional Entities...

What about time slips? What separates those "ghosts" that seem aware of their current environment vs. the one's that aren't vs. the ones that seem to be between the two?

We know literally everyone DOES have their own way of seeing/perceiving things, but can we pigeonhole their experiences into one genus or class? Are there absolutes in terms of "what and how" with what happens when people experience these things?

Are they "things" or "events"?

Again, like my last post today, many people lean heavily on their own beliefs rather than evidence... and although many rightfully claim so-called sceptics are afraid of a variable mucking up their dogma (like finding out there MIGHT INDEED BE something we currently consider "paranormal" out there thus ruining their steadfast view of the universe...) one can equally claim that some of the absolute "too-true-believers" might have their steadfast view of their universe ruined should unignorable (yes, I made that word up!) evidence prove to the contrary of their universe-view.

The issue, as always, is that many who report that they are "in the field" or "in the study" are not able to separate themselves from the cold hard evidence and fall back on dogma...

...after all, ask any "ghost hunter", and all ghosts are spirits of the dead...

...after all, ask any legitimate and educated parapsychologist, and all ghosts are the manifestation of psi from the witnesses own being...

...after all, ask any demonologist, and all ghosts are demons or troubled souls that need to be exorcised at most, "crossed over" at least...

...after all, ask any "sceptic", and all ghosts are lies, delusions, hoaxes, the construct of the mentally ill...

...after all, ask any...

Funny thing is anyone above could be right...

Funnier thing is anyone above could be wrong...

Super-Crunchy-Double-Bonus-Points Funniest thing is that all of the above are almost completely wrong on most cases.

All anyone with a modicum of actual interest in truly looking into the phenomena knows 100% sure is people believe they experience these things.

No one with an IQ better than a bag of doorknobs thinks that people have never truly felt that they've honestly experienced "weird stuff" of some sort that's attributed to the paranormal.

...and equally, even the most credulous people I've met do not assume every report from everyone who says they have had an experience with the paranormal is perfectly reporting, without any mistakes or personal interpretations getting in the way, an absolute factual event.

This said, it's only a very vocal minority that believe everyone who's had these experiences is full of bunk.

In my eyes, this means we, those truly interested in answers moreso than promoting their own agendas must be neutral and down the middle and accept and view all data regardless.

It reminds me why on all of PSICAN's standard web pages, near the bottom of the page, you'll find this quote...

Paranormal research "...is beset by True Believers ('They must be, therefore they are!') and True Unbelievers ('They can't be, therefore they aren't!') Rare are those who pursue evidence wherever it may lead, no matter how the results may square with their cherished hopes and dreams. Ironically, both the TBists and the TUists see themselves as champions of objective analysis and critical thinking, when in fact they are defenders of their respective faiths and, not incidentally, their egos." which was written by the late Ufologist Karl Pflock.

There are people with genuine experiences... there are hoaxers... there are the mistaken... I think we can all accept this to one degree or another... but we all must not marry our minds to one preferred dogma because someone told us their version "Must Be True!"... no... we must ask questions, look into all possibilities, examine all evidence... and unless it's just so empirical that it can't be denied, allow for all potential answers without accepting any of them as a permanent and steadfast philosophy.

The paranormal... that which is "beyond normal"... is not completely understood by anyone no matter what you may be told or hear. It's not a study to be taken on as an absolute "as is", but something we should try to understand... and as such, we should be poking it (and those who make statements about it,) with a stick every so often... especially when we have questions.

The best investigators and researchers out there ask questions and demand evidence moreso from themselves than others as a rule... but this also makes them question others as well.

As I paraphrased above, and as Jacob Bronowski once said...

It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it.

So, no, I really didn't answer Mr. Topham's question... because there is no perfect answer for me... and there may never be one...

...but I do have a lot of questions still.

You would think that by reading some blogs and websites that calls from the dead are so numerous that paranormal researchers, and organisations such as ourselves would require business phone plans just to keep up with the pace! Of course this is not true, and of course that statement is made somewhat in jest. A good business phone plan or service is in no way needed for this type of research endeavour, just a keen sense of wanting to look into a mystery and a good dollop of common sense.

The topic of phone calls from the dead is in no way new, either as a phenomenon or as a research project. At my request Matthew reviewed the book Phone Calls from the Dead (1979 - Prentice Hall) written by The Late D. Scott Rogo and Raymond Bayless for the PSICAN website last year, which itself is a fascinating look at the subject, and must read! Jim Hale of CPRI in Virginia expanded on their work in the early 2000s, and his paper on the subject published in 2004 is available through their website.

While intriguing this particular phenomenon is still relatively rare despite the mass digitized communication age we live in. We do get in the occasional report, but again no business phone plan needed despite what some may have you believe.

PSICAN's Facebook Page has really picked up some interesting conversations of late... thanks mostly to Elvis Podvorac and Ian Topham really...

I'm going to do two posts on these... but I'm going to start with the post from Mr. Podvorac who posited...

I'm curious to see how people would answer this question: "I believe that orb photos are ghosts because..."

Now, the thread/post is VERY lengthy, but mostly it was the "pro/con" debate... and I tried to pitch a wee spanner into the works. I responded with...

Looking at the big reason most people assume their orb photo is a ghost, (which is usually the fact the image was taken at a presumed haunted location or when a "spirit" might have been nearby or even felt,) and then apply my question of "If a cat lept into the frame as the picture was snapped, would the cat be a ghost too?", one could make another argument...

If you feel 100% certain that there's no way airborne particles illuminated just in front of the lens could possibly be a factor (which is an absolute impossibility,) then why isn't the orb a a faerie or, considering the tremendous cross-over and when realising that the pinnacle idea of using a stereo camera to see if the orbs are indeed "away" from the lens of a camera was done initially by someone better known in Ufological circles (Dr. Charles Lietzau's stereo camera/orb work from late 2003 through mid 2004,) why can't the orb be an alien? (I am NOT being sarcastic about this... I am being very honest.)

I find it interesting that the default is that an orb in a photo, for those who believe despite the evidence, is a ghost and precious few believe they are anything else.

In fairness, there are Ufological "fans" who do subscribe to "orbs in photos are alien" (this is because round shaped UFOs are often referred to as orbs and this is what got Dr. Lietzau and Dr. Bruce Maccabee to do their work on the subject in the early 2Ks,) but overall, it's all about ghosts...

Aside from the amount of evidence to suggest orbs are "natural" rather than "supernatural" in origin, why is the default set to ghosts? Was that episode of Unexplained Mysteries in the 1990's with the orbs writing on Polaroid film so pervasive as to set a tone?

For the record, while trying to remember the name of the show, "Unexplained Mysteries", I ran into an old Ufological blog where people SEEING orbs (quite different from photographing them,) was debunked by a sceptic as "floaters" (dust and other microscopic particles in their eyes)... I've always pointed out that SEEING an orb is different then photographing them... but the knee-jerk auto-debunking of, "You saw NOTHING! It was dust in your eye!" was rather... amusing in a sad way.

Realistically, I do believe that the sheer amount of evidence to suggest orb photos are "normal" as opposed to "paranormal" makes the greater likelihood that they are not all that ghostly (or alien or faerie-like) in their construct and as such, is how I base my opinion. With the stereo camera work already done by and the lack of a photo showing a clear (not semi-translucent) orb obscured by a physical item really "damns" the notion too much for me.

However, I do keep a slightly open mind... but I need good evidence to be completely converted... and to date, none has been presented... and if you knew the slings, arrows, and genuine threats (including physical ones) I took from 1998 through 2003 on this subject, you'd know that I have "paid" for my opinion... and many people have tried... but so far, nothing has come up to sway me... and often one has to note, when looking at SOME of the evidence presented, many people who strongly believe in orbs do come off as "flat-earthers" in terms of ignoring things like how cameras work or why cheaper cameras had more orbs than expensive ones... Physics and engineering can help, but only if you pay attention.

Now, although I’m “hard-to-one-side-of-centre” towards the Orbs Aren’t Good Evidence of the Paranormal argument, it is fascinating to watch the sides of the arguments gently go at it on the subject...

I watch and I wonder to myself... is there any fantastic evidence to show orb photos are NOT caused by natural elements and are paranormal in nature? Not an ounce, really...

Is there a tonne of evidence from many different angles to support the idea that they ARE caused by natural elements and are not paranormal in nature? Yes... a lot...

...and not only (as stated,) from ghostly circles to show possible “skewing”... as I said, the first and original stellar work on orb photos and stereo cameras was done by Dr. Charles Lietzau (his paper was submitted to MUFON members on May 31st, 2004) who is better known in Ufological circles... and the first good study on airborne particles was done by another person known better in Ufology, Dr. Bruce Maccabee which is from 2001... so it's not just some of us within the "ghostly" community (or even the "sceptical" community) that have sincere and serious doubts about orbs...

...and as the keenly aware might have noted, Dr. Maccabee's paper refers to a gent named Bryan Williams, who, long before any ghostly website claimed anything, and not very long after the airing of the oft mentioned "Unexplained Mysteries" episode with orb photos and vortex photos being presented as evidence of "ghosts", felt his orb photos were indeed, aliens.

Now, the problem is that despite the sheer amount of evidence, people still claim that their orb (or ones they like) must be paranormal because...

#1: There is no light source to illuminate the "airborne particle" to produce the orb.

#2: Technology has vastly improved and this is why previously unseen orbs are now seen... Digital cameras are so quick, they capture the spirits on the fly! Literally!

#3: It was a dust-free environment. My flash couldn't have caught anything.

#4: They know a ghost was in the vicinity when the image was taken.

Okay, let's dissect these rationally...

#1: A digital or chemical film camera shares something very much in common with a photocopier, a computer scanner, and indeed, (and I have SOME experience in optimetrics, but that experience wasn't really needed for this bit,) your eyesight. In the absence of any light, you have nothing... it's black... dark. To see something, you need light to either be absorbed or reflected back into your eye, a lens, or whatever... if that's not happening, you see nothing... at all... including whatever was in your picture... so in order to say the image had NO light source, you'd need to take a picture in zero light... nothing... so the image should be a sea of nothing but black.

#2: No, there is no discernible difference (really) in terms of digital and chemical cameras in terms of photographic basics... BUT... later model cameras came with built in flashes... and to make them cheaper, the flashes were close to the lens... sometimes even tilted towards the lens for red-eye reduction... THIS is why orb photos are more common now than before... and if you do a little web-snooping, you'll see late model "point-and-click" 35mm cameras were (in the 1990's) prone to orbs and were, indeed, the most common source of orb photos prior to the popularization of digital. It's not about camera or film technology, it's about construction and placement of the lens/flash.

#3: In America, you could call NASA or the CDA to verify this... but your local hospital or any high-tech or bio-med company can confirm what I'm about to say... you will almost never had a perfectly dust-free room... and that's talking about "clean rooms" where they work on viruses and other scientific experiments. (Hence clean suits to hazmat suits and even shoe covers with sticky floors in entrance halls into these rooms... and even emergency showers, just in case!) Now, if they can't perfect a "clean room" to work on ebola, what do you think the average living room is like for normal household dust? Google it and be amazed... and possibly a touch grossed out!

#4: This is the one reason I personally don't completely write off orb photos... because this may be... however... I've often asked, if I was snapping a photo of a "haunted location", and a cat jumped into the frame and took off and I was unable to find it, would it be assumed the cat was a ghost? The reason to ask this is one has to assume that if there's a ghost or a ghostly experience happening anywhere, other things might be happening too that aren't "ghostly" in nature... like temperature controls being implemented or the like... as such, is the orb in the photo an airborne particle illuminated somehow into a large orb that just happened to be "captured" in the photo at a "ghostly" event... which is logically extremely likely... or was it proof OF a "ghostly" event... which is somewhat unlikely?

I could then cite the lack of the "partially obscured orb" or the aforementioned "stereo camera" evidence to support orbs being away from the lens... but I think you get the idea.

Now, to my believing friends read the thing just below this... and answer this question... "Am I comfortable with this statement..."

Whenever something weird is experienced anywhere in the world, several people have noticed the air grows colder... and as I've had odd experiences when it's chilly, it seems to be a thing... As such, without question, cold air temperatures are absolute proof of paranormal events.

Would this be accurate?

Do you see flaws with this statement?

If you do, why ignore the evidence that does show that orb photos might be problematic?

In my honest estimation, the BEST paranormal investigators, researchers... hang on, let me change this, the BEST investigators and researchers on ANY topic always ask "why" and "how"... and answer them "neutrally" to find the truth regardless of what they may want to be true.

...but that will lead to my next post...

Many of our readers here are probably familiar with the Canadian tv series Creepy Canada. For those who are not so familiar with the show, it was featured on the Travel channel and visited reportedly haunted sites and locations around the country. I believe Creepy Canada is still occasionally being shown on television and if interested you can check your local cable listings for air times, and dates.

For those who were fans of Creepy Canada you may want to check out Redemption, which is a new offering from the CBC. Redemption is produced by Brian O'Dea who was also the producer of Creepy Canada. For those who do not know already, Mr O'Dea is a reformed drug smuggler who spent time in prison. In my opinion he is a great example of someone who has turned their life around for the positive. The show which features other reformed criminals should be an inspiration to those wishing a second chance, and the general audience.

I really do not know too much about this process, but I do know to remove criminal record in this country you need to obtain a canadian pardon application. I would assume that while probably straightforward, if you were seeking a pardon, you should probably look for a trusted source to help with the process.

For those seeking a removal of a criminal record canada service please have a look at this website I have surfed over to by clicking on the link above. The website has a lot of information, and should be a good start to those seeking to fully turn their lives around, and have a second chance.

I really do believe in most cases people do deserve an opportunity at a second chance and perhaps Brian O'Dea's show will lead to positive things for many other people.

For those wondering if perchance the genre of "ghost reality-ish teevee" was really in the process of jumping the shark, well... we have the ramp, we have the water, we have the shark, and...

Now, three things sprung immediately to mind with these young ladies and this show...

#1: One has to wonder if a law suit from the original dreadful Canadian "Girly Ghosthunters" television programme will be en route shortly...

#2: When I first went to the site and saw "HM Girly Ghosthunters" pop up in the address bar, for a brief and terrifying moment, I thought they might have had a royal approval from Her Majesty!

...and #3...

This was inevitable.

Now, I will NOT be dismissive of this... and not for the male-hormone reasons one might imagine... but because these reality-ish television programs are both reaity-ISH (meaning not entirely real) and, more importantly, entertainment. They're meant to "sell soap", not really educate folks. If someone was to do a REAL documentary about ghosts and the act of studying/investigating/learning about them, although a properly done one would be AMAZING to folks like those who are readers of this blog, our sites, and many others, the vast majority of the public would be bored senseless. This is why the current (shrinking, thank God!) crop of reality-ish paranormal shows tend to "sex things up" with shutting down lights for no applicable reason, trotting machines that go "ping" without really using them properly (but they really look and occasionally sound cool!) and play up the whole "spooky-boo" aspect of things.

These ain't documentaries, folks... and most of it ain't real by any measure.

Keeping in mind that (honestly) in about ten business days, eight hours per day, I could train pretty much anyone of standard or even slightly below standard intelligence to not only be able to do pretty much everything portrayed in most para-reality-ish ghost television programming's version of an "investigation", but I could probably teach someone to be able to (at least) hold their own (read: be respectable) to most of the more educated elements within these studies and within general paranormal "academia" as well. Considering this, *IF* (and that's an assumption... probably correct, but bear with me,) these women didn't have an interest beyond a good horror flick on occasion prior to this show, they could be brought up to speed and effectively enlightening... if only via a script...

...BUT AGAIN, who knows! Perhaps they're all amazingly intelligent and well versed students of paranormal experiences/events who just HAPPEN to all look pretty astoundingly attractive with interesting and slightly shared career paths.

...or not.

So, considering the crop of shows that have come and gone, and realising that the ratings are starting to nose dive and interest is being lost faster than a bucket of questers in a casino for hyperactive people with high metabolisms and gambling disorders, what could they do?

They've tried "celebrities"... not so good... so, here we have a good mix of models, pole dancers, and burlesque performers... basic eye candy for the young males (and females) out for an evening's entertainment on the videobox.

Granted, one has to assume that with the news of this impending show, dozens of "would be" paracelebrities waiting for their own reality-ish teevee shows must be queuing up to leap off various tall structures because, as of now, you can't be a plump-ish or unsightly person to make money running about pretending to be far more knowledgeable on this subject whilst waving about any of the "scientific" equipment (or worse, religious artifact/whatever) that to the educated eye, the person wielding these items rather obviously has no clue how to properly use these implements...

...no...

..."mainstream" teevee is doing what it always did do, which is ONLY hiring the aesthetically pleasing to do entertainment for the masses.

In short, and as someone with a legit marketing background (pre-tech days) sex sells.

Granted, this isn't necessarily a "new" lesson as such... after the first few North American reality-ish programs made it small on the small screen on cable here, many cos-play (costume-play) groups launched basically mimicking these paracelebrities and even asking for recruits that weren't "frumpy" or were "photogenic"/"telegenic" and some even demanding portfolios and demi-audition videos... so it was coming... and when you consider, as stated, that not only are the ratings taking a bit of a pounding on these shows (with some already deep-sixed by their networks,) but the paracelebrities from them (at least in North America) are now doing live shows in bars and clubs, chances are things ain't so good down ghostly reality-ish teevee way.

No offense, fellas, but when you're career ends up on a stage with the words, "Try the veal!" being one of your closing lines (and not in a comedic sense,) I think it's safe to assume your days in this study are numbered... even off camera.

...and now, what you have left is up against Emma, Dani, Lisa, Elle, Stacie, Michelle, Cat, Jess, and Emma-Louise.

I mean, you guys are/have been on teevee... and even if you had a genuine interest at some point, how on EARTH will you compete for your main demographic when someone who has gotten, and I quote...

...a bit bored of the gym so I've recently started burlesque and cheerleading classes and when I'm not posing for the camera, filming or shaking my tassels or pom poms I can usually be found shopping, lunching or playing with my four dogs!

...as part of their CV!?!

This all said, do I believe this incarnation of "Girly Ghosthunters" will spur every lonely paranormal investigator's dream of a field filled with gorgeous girls as of now?

No... sadly, that's not what will happen if this gains traction.

What is more likely to happen will be loads of creepy guys hoping to lure "hot chicks" into ghost hunting... yup, let the slime trails begin!

I've always said this field has had more than it's share of cow-pats... I am now braced for the potential next big thing... and despite the televised appearances, that ain't a pretty thing.

THIS ALL SAID, in all honesty and from a strictly entertainment standpoint, I do wish this show well... and although the fact that it exists is an indication of these programs finally going the way of the Nehru jacket, it is also an indication that "popular" media is swinging these things to where, in my eyes, it really belongs... which with these teevee offerings, is "for entertainment purposes only". Enjoy the fun and visuals, but, in my humble opinion, take it with a grain of salt and know that chances are, it's not really teaching as much as entertaining...

...and oddly enough, I DO believe that's a good thing!

Those who might be genuinely interested in the subject beyond a veneer will (and do tend to) find other (more complete) sources for information on the study regardless, and those who just enjoy a good scare and the "spooky boo" stuff will have their shows... so perhaps this is what reality-ish teevee should become.

After all, as I said at the top, I thought it was inevitable.

Quick Note: Don't get me AT ALL wrong here... is it possible to be unbelievably good looking, intelligent, well versed, and a fantastic spokesperson for paranormal studies?

...and no, I will not say, "SURE! Just look at me!" as I've always felt I had a great face for radio...

...but YES. Indeed. It's very possible.

...and the "unbelievably good looking" part is becoming the only absolutely mandatory if you wish any sort of "paracelebrity" career.

This said, looking at *THIS* show (the one above) in particular, if they are all capable of complete understanding of all the potential arguments in terms of looking at experiences as being caused by psi, the "DPH", somehow multidimensional, and all points in between let alone the other aspects of these studies... I'll be honest... they're hiding it extremely well in their bios!

It is with sadness that we learned through Loyd Auerbach that William Roll passed away this morning, January 9th 2012. His contributions to the field of parapsychology and in specific his work on poltergeist cases and RSPK was invaluable to our fields of study.

You can read more about Dr Roll here and here and read about one of his more famous cases here.

RIP Dr Roll. You will be missed.

You have to be a member (FREE TO JOIN! - VIP code is 1967) to see or participate in it... and there are links to the past six in the thread so you can see my epic fails at prognostication!

Give it a go! Let's see how are predicative skills add up!

It's at http://psican.org/links/2012predict/ or click here to get in on the future!

My predictions are online NOW... Sue's are coming... a couple of others have chimed in... let's hear from YOU!

SEE IT NOW before either it's all sold by poor psychics who use our material as their own to prove their brilliance OR the Mayans are proven potentially correct!