Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

Are some types of places considered to be more haunted than others? There are places that have more reports than others... more witnesses... perhaps less chance of "corrupt" witnesses (less chance of people going to a specific location to look for ghosts that they'd heard were supposedly there and Ergo: Experience what they expect to experience... which leads to wonder about possible corruption of that witness in terms of being "led" to a finding...) but until someone proves the existence of ghosts as popularly defined or can properly quantify a level of haunting with some form of empirical measurement (beyond simply number of witness reports) then no, you can't really say one place is more "haunted" than another.

You may be disappointed to learn we do not go out with the latest discombobulated boobeloober that will make ghosts instantly appear, and can be purchased for a ridiculous amount of money at an online ghost hunter store.

We are researchers, and documentarians, and realistically, the only absolutes as far as equipment go for us is our ears, eyes, common sense, pen/pencil, and paper...

The main thing for us is to get the reports and stories (including the oral history, "mythology", and witness reports of events) and then look at the data to see if there's anything above simply collecting data, that we might wish to do.

Since the attempt to collect evidence of (and explain incidents if possible of) "paranormal" activity is something we do, we listen to the reports and see if, from them, we can determine if we wish to proceed with any equipment for regular recording of events or environment... If the reported experiences are happening with fairly regular frequency (experiences more than once every two weeks,) and the events are "seen", then we may bring cameras... if it's "heard", we'll bring audio recorders... if it's "environmental" (strange breezes, temperature changes, etc.) we'll bring weather monitoring equipment.

Again, these instruments would be tailored to the reports and with any times involved with the activity.

Either way, the most important things for any investigator to have in their "tool kit" are pen/pencil and paper... and common sense or critical thinking.

I should point out that the concepts and indeed words, "common sense" and "critical thinking", have been hijacked by the so-called sceptics (as much as they hijacked the term "sceptic" which used to mean "doubt", but now is used as "disbelief/non-belief",) to mean cynicism when looking into these events...

For us, "critical thinking" and "common sense" means that you should "question" and look for better evidence without falling into faith/belief or non-faith/non-belief... and that you should be safe.

As an example of "common sense", many people look for ghosts in cemeteries... but if you look through any four "true ghost story" book, and count the number of places with reported stories, cemeteries and ossuaries are not at all well represented... Ghosts are experienced where the people they are thought to represent lived, played, worked, or died... not where they are buried... so "common sense" says that cemeteries, despite the hoo-haw surrounding them, are not bastions of ghostly activity.

Another example is people considering going into an "old, abandoned house to look for the ghosts". Again, are there historical ghost stories from the house? Is it legal to be in the house? Is it safe to be in that house? If the answer is "no" to any of those questions, not going to the house is a good show of common sense.

As for critical thinking... everyone should have an ounce of doubt. I had a woman say that she had one nasty "cold spot" (localised area of noticeably lower temperatures than the rest of the nearby environment,) in her new kitchen. She bought the house in Spring time, and even when she contacted us, (early Fall of a year with a very warm (hot) Summer,) if she put margarine or butter on the counter in that area, it would stay "hard" and almost refrigerated regardless of the rest of the rooms temperature.

She looked into the history of her home, and although her house was "new" (new build in a development,) she found the original land was home to a pig farm and had wondered if the abattoir or shambles were near where that bit of her kitchen was located.

With a quick look around, I noted an above HVAC vent nearby and with a little bit of "feeling", was able to determine that the breeze from the vent hit the exact spot where butter would stay hard when the air conditioning was on. A test with a lab thermometer (and the turning on and off of the central air conditioner,) confirmed this was the case.

This was not to "shame" the person, or to debunk anything maliciously, but simply look for the most correct answer as to what's been experienced, and this is the least we owe to people who trust us to investigate their experiences.

Critical thinking, for us, simply means not being too credulous (although there's most often no reason to doubt a witness,) but not completely accepting a hypothesis of causation without empirical evidence.

Granted, we also believe in saying words many seem too scared to utter.. "We don't know". If something remains unexplained, that is the only correct answer, regardless... unless, of course, you can absolutely and empirically prove the existence of ghosts as popularly defined.

Recently on our Facebook group the topic of cash prizes for spending the night at a haunted location came up. Our Facebook group member had heard that the story went something along the lines of "if you could stay the entire night in a reportedly haunted house you would win some cash prize," but just couldn't place where this location was or how much the cash being offered might be.

My first thought is that this sounds very much like the plot of the movie House On Haunted Hill with Vincent Price. In the original if you stayed the night you'd get $10,000 dollars and in the remake in 1999 if you managed to survive the night in the haunted house you would get a one million dollar prize.

Matthew added the following.........

The 1959 classic was best! Actually, one could also claim the 1964 classic "A Haunted House is Not a Home", where Uncle Giggles "passes" away and challenges "Fat Freddy" to spend the night in his old mansion in order to get his inheritance, also fits this story.

The "spend a night and get dough" is a plot-device/fictional construct and most probably pre-dates 1959. It probably stems from bets and dares to spend nights in cemeteries and whatnot (Georgian and Victorian gents were big on this sort of wager) not to mention that one COULD argue that Washington Irving's original "Legend of Sleepy Hollow" - which is actually a modified version of a Dutch/German tale which is much older - is also based on the same premise.

I've heard "tales" where the idea of surviving a night in some place would gain you cash and prestige coming from many castles and manor homes in Europe (none true, I'm afraid,) most notably Glamis (not true and the castle is still inhabited,) and "The Bloody Tower" at the Tower of London (which, if you consider "nasty history", the Beauchamp (pronounced oddly enough, "Beecham",) would be a better option... but, this too is not true and the tower is occupied 24x7 by the Yeoman Warders. Then there's 50 Berkley Square in London which got this reputation after it's famed "ghost story" became popular about the sailors leaping to their deaths (or a variation therein,) but this is utter bunk and has no basis in history or reality... it just made for a good story.

The most famous North American mythical "spend a night and WIN!" place is probably a legend that grew from Sarah Winchester's mansion in California... because Winchester was more than a little weird AND continuously built on to the home until the day she died AND the whole reason for the higgledy-piggedly design is to keep spirits "lost" in the home AND she was VERY wealthy thanks to the Winchester firearms inheritance, there were "rumours" about being able to spend a night in the house after her passing... but again, these were rumours only.

So, as far as we know, there is no "legit" place that offers this... but many rumoured and fictional sites to be certain! JREF's million dollar prize to anyone who can prove the paranormal may also add to the general story in some fashion.

Last weekend Toronto Ghosts & Hauntings Research Society members John, Scott, and Robin were invited to visit, and explore George Brown House. Find out what they discovered by checking out the TGHRS article George Brown House Investigation.

Screen capture of CNN main page featuring UFO story.

I was pleasantly surprised to discover while having my early morning coffee, and web surfing that CNN had featured a UFO article on its main page up front, and center. The report is not exactly a new one in terms of UFO news as it is about the British government's decision to release its UFO files, granted this is the latest installment in that endeavour, and contains more than 6,000 pages of reports that were collected from 1994 to 2000.

You can read the full CNN UFO article by clicking the link.

It is nice to see the mainstream news treating the topic seriously, and with dignity.

Royal York Hotel - Updated

An interesting update from a family who stayed at the hotel last weekend:

Both of the following private home reports are currently being followed up on by OGHRS researchers:

Fergus Private Home - New

and

Kitchener Private Home - New

Any further updates will be posted to the site.

Neither of the next two reports are current. The witnesses in both cases are hoping someone else might recognise something from their reports and have further information to add or be able to share their own experiences, either in these houses or in the neighbourhoods.

And it happens on occasion...Sumach and Lawlor in Toronto immediately spring to mind.

Hi Mount Drive Private Home - New

and

Roseheath Avenue Private Home - New

Enjoy! Wishing you a Happy Valentines Day, and A Happy Chinese New Year!

The question of whether or not Ouija boards are "dangerous" has caused some recent debate on our paranormal forums that was based around a US group that are trying to have them banned for sale as a children's toy.

My thoughts on the matter are this....I have never personally received a "feel good" report where one of these boards were used. In other words I never hear from people saying I had a heart warming chat with my deceased Mom etc. Maybe those people just don't contact us????

The fact remains though, every time someone contacts us to date in regards to Ouija boards its because they perceive a negative experience has occurred to them because of the board, even if in the beginning it is only seen as just harmless fun.

In my opinion even if it is only psychological and/or a RSPK effect that is causing the experience obtained through using these boards, if the person believes it is demonic or evil or bad then they will most likely experience it that way.

We also know through medical studies that other occult rituals such as exorcism do have a demonstrated negative effect on people suffering mental disorders. So the leap to say that Ouija usage may have the same effect on others with fragile or impressionable minds is not a big one.

I do not like saying Ouija boards are "dangerous" simply because millions are sold around the globe every year, and even more homemade ones are out there, and if they proved a serious health & safety risk here in North America, and certainly Europe, public health & safety, plus consumer groups would have been on this long ago. I think that lobbying for their outright ban is a bit too much.

With that said, I will still caution people who ask my opinion on using or purchasing one that Ouija board use can produce a perceived negative experience, emotional distress, and anxiety in some people. And of course as a child's toy it is up to the parent to make decisions on what they believe is an appropriate item for their child's use, and to monitor what they are doing no matter what the toy is.

What do you think?

I am reading about ghost cases in the military and came across a report of a crisis apparition. A young pilot had died in a crash yet his apparition was seen by a fellow pilot on the air force base and was even spoken with. The ghost stated he had a safe flight, and was going to wash up. A short while later a third pilot inquired about the whereabouts of the deceased man and was assured by the witness he was back on base and cleaning up.

When the news came in that confirmed the crash, and the pilot's death the witness stated he would not have believed what happened had the other guy not asked him about the pilot and confirmed for him in his mind that he really did see the apparition, and spoke with him when in reality the pilot had been killed a short time before. The witness said he did not believe in psychics or ghosts so he would not have believed his own experience without the other pilot confirming what he had said.

How many other people would do the same under similar circumstances?

And if a witness cannot deny that something occurred that they can't readily explain, would it then make them more open to the possibility of an alternative or paranormal explanation in the future? I think so.....

Thoughts?