Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

I have no doubt that there are some people in the "paranormal community", such as it is, that assume I sit about trying to find new and interesting ways to be a complete dung-headed turd... and that would be being kind as to what they probably REALLY feel about me.

Granted, things like this post probably don't help, but NEVERMIND THAT!

I do have a bit of an "attitude"... I admit it... I revel within the term "elitist" which, personally, I don't have a problem with or see as a complete put-down in terms of trying to be the "elite" in these fields of study...

...but I kid you not when I say it does bother me when I do something like the post I mentioned above that you're not supposed to pay too much attention to.

Sure, I get grumpy about missed opportunities to further the study... and with people who, for the sake of a "cheap thrill" or a chance to be a quasi-celebrity kinda walk tracks all over a topic I feel is a genuinely important and viable study...

...but I do honestly feel bad when I rant... or do something like I know I'm about to do... which, to some, feels like taking the fun out of things... or something like that...

We're about to change how PSICAN brings people on board to our team.

The GOOD news is that it'll still be free. (We've never charged and aren't about to start that practice.)

The BETTER news is that ANYONE can be a part of the team no matter what your background, interest, level of education... anything! Provided you're over eighteen years of age, bondable, a Canadian citizen (or landed immigrant), promise to follow our Rules of Governance and Presentation, have regular access to the internet, are willing to invest at least ONE hour per week on the study, and... well...

...here's where people are going to hate me...

...pass a (free - no charge, never any charge!) exam or questionnaire to standards that *will* be made clear and do three articles, reports, papers, or investigations (with notes) for us and submit them for review... Upon passing exam and the review, THEN you'll be on the team.

If not, you'll have to wait a year to try again... if you're still interested.

This is a HELL of a lot of work for many people... especially in the rather hedonistic online world of "instant access" to most things...

...and really, what DOES all this work get you?

Sure, we'll bust our butts to get you information and resources as we can... You will be part of a team that's already impressive in terms of people involved... As a group, we can boast that we've worked with The Koestler Parapsychology Unit in the Psychology Department at the University of Edinburgh, we've worked with members of The Society for Psychical Research, The Rhine Research Center, and The Parapsychology Association... We've worked with and for students and educators at University of Toronto, Ryerson University, York University, and dozens of others... We have a healthy relation with countless historical sites and groups both "public" (government run such as Parks Canada,) and private and are proud we can boast friends in groups ranging from The Spiritualist Church of Canada to The Association for Science and Reason (formerly Skeptics Canada). Of course, no matter where you are in the country, we'll send you e-mails, reports, requests, and information on your favoured topic of study as we get them...

...all of which SOUNDS really impressive...

...and to me and I know to our group, FEELS pretty darned impressive...

...but we aren't "ghost hunters". We don't claim we have "ghost detectors". We don't have access to CSIS and the RCMP's hidden data on the aliens. We don't have "the perfect bait" for a Sasquatch. We don't have people "lined up" to hand us the keys to their haunted mansion. We don't have a lab in which to test the psychical abilities of dozens of amazingly talented intuitives...

...well, that last part? I'll add the word "yet". We do honestly hope we will and do think and work towards that goal, but not yet...

Realistically, we want people that DO have the drive, that DO have the interest, that ARE serious about these things to see a PSICAN membership as a legitimate status symbol. Something that says you earned a respected spot on a respected team. Something that let's people know you're not REALLY an "elitist", but you are a member of an "elite" group that shows you've proven your worth.

Basically, I want a PSICAN member to always be a TRUSTED member of any team, investigation, or study project. ('Cuz you DON'T have to ONLY be a PSICAN person... You can be part of another team and a PSICAN member as well...)

Sounds good, doesn't it?

...but I know better...

Everything above will be read as this...

We're elitist! We're better than EVERYONE! We're gonna tell EVERYONE how to do EVERYTHING! We're gonna control EVERYTHING! If you're not a member of OUR team, YOU SUCK!

...which no, isn't true.

Long ago, I realised that you need other voices, other methods, other thoughts coming in or you stagnate. You cease to progress because everyone's not just on the same page, but stuck in the same ruts!

This said, we do think that it would be nice to be able to say that "these" people are open minded completely to any possibility... including being dead wrong in their own beliefs. These people will set aside cherished faiths and beliefs in search of the truth wherever the data leads them. These people aren't solely interested in "the effect", but need to try and find "the cause" too... and are prepared to be corrected when shown they're wrong. These people are primarily interested in the well being and security of a witness or experient... and then the data they can obtain... and these two things far outweigh any "YouTube" dreams of stardom or "cheap thrills". These are people who realise that you don't need to be a "scientist" to practice good science. These are historians, physicists, engineers, observers, data collectors, and all point in between. These people SEE the study as a study, not a social networking tool or a business...

These are the investigators and researchers. These are the people who HAVE proven that these things ARE serious, SHOULD be studied properly, and are worthy of an effort and an educated eye.

Effectively I want to show that "these people"... these PSICAN members... they genuinely care.

That's the hope... and I think we'll make it happen...

...but it does bother me that there will be those who will NOT like this and see it as "controlling" or whatever...

It isn't.

There's room for everyone interested in these studies... We're just setting ONE benchmark. We think it's a good one, but that, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder...

I honestly KNOW (let alone believe,) that "our way" is NOT for everyone... and that's fine... and hopefully, we can all still work together...

...but to those that I can already hear readying their pitch-forks and torches... I honestly do not mean harm. I honestly do not want to "keep people from" these studies...

We just want to set one bar for ourselves... and perhaps others.

We hope you can and will respect that.

...sadly, I am certain that there will be some who can't.

This said, it won't stop the wheels we've put into motion.

So, here's to the NEXT level of PSICAN members! We will be magnificent... and I'm certain, we will be irritating to some... even if it is truly unintentional.

Once many years ago on the old Toronto Ghosts and Hauntings Research Society web forums we did an informal poll that overwhelmingly indicated that our readership at least at that time was made up of a lot of health care workers, and professionals. This was particularly true of the front line hospital staff.

So why the interest in these topics (more specifically ghosts and hauntings) you may be wondering? We believe the answer lies in the fact that hospitals continue to rank #1 in our own findings of most haunted places (meaning more reports per location). It is not unusual at all to get reports in of specters wearing medical uniforms or old fashioned looking doctors lab coats roaming the halls of some of the cities older medical buildings. In fact reports are indicative of that perhaps these spirits are still tending to their duties long after they themselves are gone.

While we keep most of our reports in our private offline files to protect privacy, and to insure patient comfort we can comfortably say that we have reports from every hospital within the Greater Toronto Area, which is not the case of cemeteries, nor funeral homes. Perhaps this is a testament to the dedication of the health care providers that their spirit still lingers.

Speaking of nursing and other medical staff, here is an online source to check out for discount medical scrubs that might be of interest to some of our readers.

Happy Holidays & Happy Hauntings!

Wikipedia is Accurate. (Citation Needed)

#1: Did you know that the British Society for Psychical Research ranks Athens as one of the most haunted places on earth? It must be true, I mean, that link above is from The University of Ohio's newspaper, "The Post"! Heck, if that wasn't enough for you, how about this link to a secondary online source! It's true, it's true! (Oh, in case while writing this and publishing it, things fly down the memory hole... Screen Shot of the first link... Screen Shot of the second link... if needed.)

#2: Speaking of the much vaunted (with good reason) society, did you know that Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman were once presidents of the organisation? It's true! Someone on the Unexplained Mysteries message board SAID SO! (In case of memory hole, click here.... the fellow also gets double-points for this typo in his signature line...)

#3: Hey, why pick on the Society? I mean, we here at PSICAN force people who wish to be a part of our group as researchers and/or investigators to GIVE us just under $100 JUST to take the exam... even if you FAIL! (I won't put that link up for that last one, because... well... it was "dealt with" and no harm no foul... I'm only bringing it up for this point...)

Everything above (save my italicised note,) is 100% pure and utter horse poop. Codswallop. Nonsense. Fabricated. Not true. Has no basis in reality. Utter bullsh... you get the idea...

...but DAMNED if these "untruths" don't continue!

Heck, even the recent unpleasantness at St. John's Shrewsbury in Quebec is a single-source miscommunication more likely than not... because "thrill seekers" and "would-be ghost hunters" didn't understand the difference between a "ghost town" (a town that is deserted,) and a "ghost" (or "ghosts") in a town.

It seems people hear something, parrot it back as if it's absolute, and whammo! In the popular mindest, it becomes acknowledged fact.

To set the record straight...

#1: The SPR has never done a ranking of haunted places that anyone's aware of. After all, how would you "quantify" a place as more or less haunted than the next? (So says Tom Ruffles of the SPR...)

#2: Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman, both well known as quasi-sceptics (non-believers), might have been members of the SPR... but never presidents. (So says this list of their past presidents.)

#3: PSICAN, Torontoghosts, Ontarioghosts, ParaResearchers... and all sites and groups DIRECTLY related to them... have not and will never "charge" to become a member or an investigator. (Um, I'm a founder... and a current director... and yeah, I've been running the joint with Sue since day one.)

There's a VERY famous quote that may or may not have originated with either Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens or Abraham Lincoln (earliest attributions) that goes along the lines that it's better to keep one's mouth closed and be thought to be a fool then to open it and remove all doubt.

Apparently, on the internet, this need not be the case. You can pretty much say any danged thing, and if you like it or FEEL it might be true, then it is... and aren't you smarter for it!

A prime example of this are those people who use Wikipedia as the "ultimate resource" for any discussion or quick article.

In all honesty, I use Wiki for some things... but I do have this annoying habit of getting the "quick read" from it, then double-checking the resources and citation's listed for the topic I'm looking at... Then I "Google" that topic AGAIN and look for secondary the even third, fourth, and fifth sources... and if it's for a paper or a full-on article, I will hit the library for help... and e-mail "authorities" on the subjects for assistance too! (Oh, and yes, I do cite everything... even Wiki...)

...but consider this...

As at least an "interested party" in things paranormal (and if not, what are you doing reading this blog???) would you accept data and "corrections" on things paranormal from THIS (click here) person? This person DOES have editorial rights on Wiki... and is the bane of many folk's Wiki existence... because he CAN cite things like the aforementioned Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman (though folks like him "shun" these people because "psychology" is a soft-science at best,) and CSICOP (although they changed their name to the more pop-culture, media-friendly CSI... and have two "doctors" in that HARD science of English - both emeritus...) JREF, and Skeptics Magazine to PROVE his infallibility.

...this is akin to the doctors that were hired BY the big tobacco companies who told us HOW GOOD smoking was for us... and they had detailed studies and tests (all done by other doctors and scientists who, oddly enough, ALSO worked for the big tobacco companies,) to show us the error of our ways for quitting our nicotine habit.

Now, in recent months, I've been smacked (and smacked HARD!) by some folks in North America who feel that the study of the paranormal should (actually) NOT be the domain of the "educated elite" (so to speak... and if anyone's reading this, just so you know, I'm now expecting THREE e-mails from people who wish to know why I'm "talking about" them...) and we should just "go forward" with... well... whatever. One person of this view also felt that "we", those interested in the subject, would never be "taken seriously" by anyone with a higher education so that angle of study and work was a trifle pointless... I was able to show that "evidence" was to the "contrary", but I did understand that point of view with what some folks do...

This said, some of us do feel the need to say that what we do *is* legitimate and *is* worthy of proper funding and resources and very well *could be* extremely important work from everything from a psychological, physics-based, and even possibly neurological standpoint. In order to break that barrier of being considered a "proto-science", we need to separate the "ghost hunters" from the psychical researchers... We *must* say that...

#1: ...running about the "haunted house" trying to get readings on this or that machine is one thing...

#2: ...trying to explain things like...

a: Why do these things happen?
b: Why do people experience these things?
c: What is the cause of these experiences?

...and even...

d: Why did that machine get a weird reading?

...is another.

You can do the first one and (provided your respectful, careful, and ethical,) have a great time, have a nice social experience, and indeed, possibly find some really interesting data and evidence in your activities... but that is "ghost hunting"... and it doesn't help provide empirical data to try and change the minds of the "powers that be" in terms of taking our work seriously... but if you don't want to, you don't have to!

However, if you wish to do the second one... well... then you better be prepared to be questioned... and those questions may NOT be easy... and you will need to do some homework.

I get about four to five "submitted corrections" for articles and bits on our websites every year... and I do look into them and see if there's validity in them... and indeed, I do and will make corrections as needed (and if they desire, credit the person who "straightened me out" for the help!)

...but I also get people writing to me complaining that things like my understanding of the multiverse is incomplete, my knowledge on neutrinos needs brushing up, and my notes on The Battle of Queenston Heights is missing some important data... and they DO come from academics and people who are "authorities" in those areas... and I do accept and am grateful for their help and indeed, their interest in our work!

This said, if I made the statement, using one of the examples above... All apparitions MUST be made of neutrino particles as they are the ONLY things that might have the ability to do those motions apparitions are SAID to go through!, I better do four things...

#1: I need to understand what a neutrino is.

#2: I need to qualify what an apparition is said to do, decide if the model I'm envisioning fits a general statement, find sources that show this is the case, and why I feel that this statement is accurate.

#3: Look into other possible hypothesis of what an apparition is, what reputable work exists to support/defeat my hypothesis, and decided if my statement can stand up to general scrutiny.

...and most importantly...

#4: FACT CHECK MYSELF with good cite-able sources.

...because I'm going to be questioned... and I should be... and honestly, saying I saw a teevee show is not good enough... and this is what is passing for "knowledge" with most people... (many citing what can be only best described as "reality-ish" television programs,) and citing Wiki... well... there's a good reason why it's common to see the words in Wiki... Citation Needed.

If you want to progress this study... if you want to be MORE than a "ghost hunter", or a "thrill seeker", or someone with dreams of being the next reality-ish television star... then have that citation ready and indeed, PROVE YOUR POINT properly!

Heck, if you really, Really, REALLY think that the Society for Psychical Research thinks the University of Ohio is in their ranking of the "Most Haunted Place" list... drop the SPR an e-mail... it won't hurt, you'll get an answer pretty quickly, and best of all, you'll be wiser for the experience.

It's all about being as correct as you can be...

I find it's best to let others be simply "loud".

A wee caveat about the "Pants on Fire" image at the top of this rant... MOST people who publish rubbish without citation or only a single source of the rubbish they whelped back into the general discourse of "things" are not liars as such... Lazy? Probably... Wanting to support their views any way they can (even with shaky facts?) Most common...

...but when these folks do caught out, it does make them look as if... well... give these folks an extinguisher for their trousers.

It's too bad really... because bad sourcing is as bad as dealing with the "close minded".

Paranormal Studies and Investigations Canada
Parent group for Torontoghosts, Ontarioghosts, and ParaResearchers

Press Release: December 9th, 2010 - 09:45am EST

PSICAN and it's daughter groups wish to state that we condemn, in the harshest of terms, the destruction and vandalism recently reported at St. John's Shrewsbury in Quebec's Lower Laurentian area, that may have a connection to would be "ghost hunters" and wish to state, for the record, that these acts have not come from our groups and go against our laws of governance ("code of conduct") in terms of how our groups operate when we are looking into reports of "ghostly" activity. PSICAN's "Rules of Governance" which Ontarioghosts, Torontoghosts, and ParaResearchers strictly abide by are located here (click here to view them).

As not only historians, folklorists, and psychical investigators and researchers... but as just general caring people in Ontario, we are appalled at what has been reported to have happened.

As we (PSICAN, Torontoghosts, Ontarioghosts, and ParaResearchers,) are proud that we are not "ghost hunters" and do work with a publicly posted code of ethics and conduct, sadly, there are those who are too fond of the fictional view of our work (and how it's also portrayed on reality-ish television as well,) and they do terrible things. We implore anyone with a genuine interest in these topics to stop, listen, and read... ensure you are welcome where you're going to, and if someone you know feels that destructive or illegal behaviour is "okay", walk away from them... and if you hear of things like this report in Shrewsbury, consider HARD contacting the authorities... preferably before it happens... because no matter who it is, stupid behaviour like this affects us all negatively in some way.

We thank you for your time in this matter...

Matthew Didier & Sue St. Clair

Please note: Although this event happened in Quebec, a CBC report had mistakenly placed it in Shrewsbury, Ontario...

"If one can't attack the data, attack the people. It is easier."
- Stanton Friedman on the rules of scepticism

A few years back, when Art Bell was still the primary host of the popular radio program "Coast to Coast", Sue and I were listening to an interview with (I believe) Michael Shermer (either him or my personal favourite, Joe Nickell, in all honesty, who it was is lost in the haze of memory...) who was chatting away about how even-handed they are in testing people who claim psychical abilities... they pointed out that out of the "hundreds maybe thousands" of tests, they had one subject, a woman, who scored above "statistical norms"... which, when you look at what is considered "statistical norms" in psychic testing, really isn't all that big a deal, but they were ALMOST puffing out their chests (briefly) in pride at how THIS showed they were "open minded" and almost secretly wanted "psychical abilities" to be "true"... a common (and silly) claim usually made by the pseudo-sceptics. However, the woman only showed "potential" once and failed to do so on other tests, so it proved nothing... and then they went on for ten minutes or so mocking her on how she was dressed.

Yes. This was apparently a "thing" with her test results and scores... the clothes on her back.

To be honest, both Sue and I noticed that the idea of their testing and the POSSIBLE success of this woman was quickly over-run by the giggling at her attire... to the point where it really came off like...

"You know, psychical abilities are nonsense. They've never been proven! We test all the time and nothing, Nothing, NOTHING! Oh, but we're fair... wehadapossiblehitwiththiswomanonce... but do you remember how she was dressed! Bawahahaha! She was dressed like a bad neo-gypsy! Let's now go on about her clothing for a long time and mock her appearance...! Oh, okay... now that we're done, where were we? Ah yes, psychic abilities seem to be nonsense!"

...but this is no surprise as this is the way it's played out time and again. Sceptics, or so-called, self-proclaimed, pseudo-sceptics who are really nothing more than from the church of non-belief (and are emphatically so to the point of being, indeed, evangelical about it,) find a flaw... or a giggle point... or ANYTHING other than addressing the issue and WHAMMO! It OBVIOUSLY proves the whole thing, whatever it is, is WRONG... and you're a ninny for even entertaining a thought about it.

Another (more specific) case was a few years ago when Sue did a speaking turn at the now semi-defunct Skeptics(sic) Canada about her excellent work in explaining the Port Perry "Ghost Road" case. Sue and her team did a fabulous job of explaining and even reproducing the lights and indeed, like it or not, they proved the light is "natural" in origin, not supernatural. This seemed like a "slam dunk" to be loved by sceptics... after all, she proved the claims to be not-so-ghostly!

Wrong!

First: A fairly well placed astrophysicist who was a part of Skeptics(em) Canada called her out on the word she used to explain the travelling of light along the hydro (or "electrical") wires... She said it was "refraction" and this fellow really made her sound like a class "A" dolt for using that word... Granted, upon investigation once we got home, the word Sue SHOULD have used was... refraction. She was made to feel like an idiot... but in fact, this man of letters was the idiot... but why let facts get in the way of a good snappish, snarky, publicly uttered verbal shot... from someone who honestly has scientific accreditation which, although it doesn't deal with telescopes as such, one would assume he tripped over them at sometime in his astrophysics career.

Second: A bright young man came up to Sue and myself after and asked how we knew of the "Ghost Road" lights... we explained that the legend was word of mouth and listed in various books that in all honesty, I was preparing to list... when he too snapped at us, "Oh yeah, the kind of books idiots read!" and quickly hustled away before we could respond.

Third: Okay, I'm not re-typing the third issue... but let me quote from this previous blog post of mine...

Eric McMillan, chair of Skeptics(sic) Canada sent Sue's notes and information about the investigation and debunking to "The Skeptical Inquirer" for possible publication... the scientific examination and explanation of one "ghost case" brought into the light using good science and excellent critical thinking...

...and they refused to publish it.

Eric didn't hide the reasons why... it's because Sue and her group (and myself) are credulous believers. Since we don't crap on witnesses and the phenomena in general and we do believe that "weird things" have happened and continue to happen... they wouldn't publish it... despite being a proper and appropriate case to display in their rag... and something that the chairman of the leading sceptical group in Canada thought was worthy... but the "The Skeptical Inquirer" did not.

Now, I have to admit... Mr. Radford sent me a couple of missives about my mistakes about the article quoted above... and I did publicly apologise for all the statements for which I had zero evidence and/or made a boo-boo... (Enjoy!)

What dredged this blog post out of me today is, oddly enough, not related to some "sceptical doin's" in terms of critiquing things before read or completely understood, (thanks to Tom Ruffles for those bits,) but this small passing bit of brilliant fun which I found in my web browsing today.

In a more "cryptozoological mode", I was reading this article which is about a strange sighting (with photographs) of "flying squids"... which is interesting as it backs up a sighting from 2001 that these things "exist".

The comments section of this new item is filled with jokes, mocks, and this...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wow.

Well, upon reading this, I could *tell* that these sightings were utter nonsense, frauds, hoaxes, and not worth the pixels that the photos of the "flying squids" ate up.

Yes, that's sarcasm above...

Now, perhaps this was just the type of semi-pedantry one does tend to find online... usually going off about spelling or grammar... but indeed, a quick search and more reading... and no. This is fault found by that super-intelligent creature that is way more with it than us... the pseudo-sceptic. Those bastions of science (that oddly enough shun hypothesis and observation before finding a conclusion,) and education that keep the rest of us all out of the dark ages. I mean, after all, everything in the universe has been explained perfectly and needs no more attention from anyone... especially YOU!

Yes, misspelled words, bad clothing choices, and using the incorrect water-reference to describe a scene are all reasons to discard hypothesis and even more!

...but then again, this if from folks that feel that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... whereas some of us foolishly feel that any claim, regardless, requires evidence and as a rule, "truth", "fact", and even "evidence" is not mooted or somehow lighter because someone on a small boat called a "sea" an "ocean".

...but hey, that's just me.

We love to hear your personal experiences with ghosts, and hauntings in the province of Ontario so please do keep sending them in. Your privacy will be protected, and witness comfort is our primary concern.

You may email us directly at submissions AT torontoghosts.org or submissions AT ontarioghosts.org

Historic Old Fort York Toronto - Updated

Woodside National Historic Site Kitchener - New

Harvie Avenue Toronto Private Home - New

Kerwood Cres Scarborough Private Home - New

Enjoy!

Since I got into the subject of writer's block here yesterday, and how unfortunately I'm going through a bout of it as I type I thought I would try to write a bit further on the topic, and in fact expand upon by sharing some of my thoughts on websites that have paid for content.

Content is key to a successful website, without content no one will read it, and no one will find it. Perhaps this is why I stress a bit when I do have writer's block although we are very fortunate to have many contributors of what in my opinion are good research papers for the Paranormal Studies & Investigations Canada (PSICAN) website.

We are non-profit and we are still in the process of seeking charitable status through the government so we do not utilise any form of research paper writing service to bolster the content for our website, nor do I think we will ever need to. However, it came to my attention not to long ago that some of the larger paranormal websites out there are taking advantage of articles, and research papers for sale much the same way large news sites, and corporate websites do.

I personally have mixed feelings on this practice of using paid content on paranormal sites. On the one hand with content again being key I do understand why some website operators trying to make a living off of the paranormal would resort to this to insure their sites remain popular. However, how trustworthy is this content? Is there a taint to reports of certain phenomenon when a professional writer is involved in the process. I do admit to coming across some reports that are so well written, and read so much like fiction it does make me wonder.

A colleague shared an online article with me a few months back - that he was slightly poking fun at (justifiably) - that told people who to "call" if their home was haunted.

Now, the reason I tossed in the (justifiably) is because, *insert gasp of shock here*, the best thing to do was to contact the author of the article's own ghost hunting group to come in and tell you if it is or isn't... then the piece goes into something like an article written by a fictional story teller on demonic entities and the like that, if you didn't contact this group, things would cause you no end of grief. (I will cover this bit in detail below...)

Anyway, more recently, another colleague posted up a link to a video on "How To Tell if Your House is Haunted" on YouTube ... and it reminded me of my thoughts on this matter from the first article sent to me...

Sure, with a "homeowner" or tenant, anyone can tell them how to seek "natural" rather than "supernatural" causations to the reported phenomena... and if all reported phenomena is effectively answered via natural causes, voila! (Well, as "voila" as one can get in these cases...)

...but what about historic sites with multiple witnesses over a long time... and as such, most likely have had many attempts to "debunk" or refute the claims of the paranormal in them that were either not complete or outright failures?

...what about public places that are considered "haunted"?

Sure, one could qualify them via the idea that there's ongoing reports of "ghostly doin's"... but how can you be sure? How do you know the witnesses aren't "corrupt"?

Okay, NOT "corrupt" as in wilfully lying, but corrupted in terms of being so 'tuned in' to the idea that the MUST experience SOMETHING in a place that... well... they do. That shadow MUST be the "headless ghost who wanders the halls"! That wee glimpse of something? "I'm certain it was a woman in nineteenth-century dress"! This doesn't mean they're naive of hoaxing, just... well... keyed up and "expecting" things, so their minds fill in certain blanks. (The link is NOT directly related to this, but does demonstrate how the mind fills in certain things in terms of perceptions...)

...and even then, let's say that thousands of people over "X" number of years go into a place with this mindset... Could they "create" a haunting? Could some form of PSI or "Tulpa" or similar thing create what they experienced... and now others do? If this is the case, does this mean the site isn't haunted?

...just WHAT is a "haunted site"? What is the qualification for that title? How does one "quantify" haunted or not haunted?

There is a simple answer... and some people won't like it... but it's true.

What makes a site haunted is if people say it's haunted.

Now, this is NOT to say I could randomly point at a house or the like and say, "That one! It's HAUNTED!" and (again) Voila!

...but...

One person says so...

...the another person experiences something, so they say so...

...and by the time you have three or more unrelated people saying so, the bargain is struck.

About the ONLY ways (and really, there are only two...) one could say a place is "Not Haunted" is if EVERY experience is explained as a natural (and obviously mistaken) incident that is replicated and the witnesses all agree that this is the case... and the other is if EVERY witness comes forward to claim they were hoaxing... or, in the same vein, enough evidence is provided to show that there has been a fraud or hoax perpetrated.

As an example of this, many people feel the "Blue Ghost Tunnel" in the Niagara Region is a "ghostly" hot spot... but have a read of this article (click here)... Now, we have (honestly) no evidence to support that this "tunnel" was a known ghostly site prior to it's initial online publication. There are no books with it in it, no newspaper articles, no "scribbled notes" on a student's yearbook or the like to say that the initial report is incorrect. In fact, the version you see has been effectively fact-checked by people who really wanted to prove it completely incorrect... but it's stood the test of time.

Now, is the "Blue Ghost Tunnel" haunting a myth?

Perhaps initially... but how do you explain so many people having experiences AFTER the initial report? Were they all lying?

I hardly think so.

So, what's there? Is there a ghost? Is there a spirit? Is there a "tulpa"? Is it RSPK?

Honestly, we don't know...

Like it or not, people have reported experiences there... and although it's history is muddied beyond recognition in most cases, it's a place where people now say they have "odd things happen".

Can I *prove* that these experiences are from some unknown entity? No.

Can I *prove* that every reported event was a mistake? No.

Can I say it certainly seems like many of us were "around" and watched the genesis of this site in terms of it's legends? Yes.

Does this make it "not haunted"? Doesn't seem so.

Now think about all this... just what does make a "haunted site"?

Seems to me, there's two things...

First is people genuinely experiencing things that seem ghostly that defy "normal" explanation...

Second is the people say it's a haunted place.

Meet either of these two prerequisites, and you have a haunted place on your hands!

Want to get rid of an entity of some sort?

A while back, on a "staycation" at home, I did a quasi-study over a week which was based on a selection of my own cases (one hundred reports selected randomly) and literally over five-hundred case studies of ghost reports based on a database of books and reports from other sources (again, randomly selected)... I did remove case studies by paranormal groups that did not follow up with a physician or at least an accredited third-party expert in medicine and of course, because of the taint, I removed any case by The Warrens so no one wonders about "Amityville" or the like... I found nothing... Not ONE case in my random selection where a witness or experient needed medical attention for a physical injury caused by a "ghost". On a secondary glance through my books, I found only TWO cases where a person was reported to have been physically hurt and requiring medical attention by an "unseen entity"... and one is from the early 1800's... the other from the 1970's. Upon review of a few articles, I can state that of the two, only one of these cases is relatively not questioned by people other than the usual suspects (CSICOPian types)... Now, considering Torontoghosts, Ontarioghosts, ParaResearchers, and PSICAN proper have over five-thousand, five-hundred reports online and over 63,000 reports offline... and not ONE requiring a witness to seek hospitalisation or help with an injury from a physician, and add to that an interview with the late Tony Cornell from The Society for Psychical Research claiming pretty much the same numbers in his studies...

DOING a quick estimation (using Google, I admit...) of active paranormal groups, areas that are currently covered, population and relative reports (and assuming every internet group only has fifteen reports,) I'd reckon your chances of being hurt or injured by an "entity" are ROUGHLY one in well over two-hundred thousand... and that's using only people who have "experienced" a ghost or entity.

Effectively, when looking at the population, your chances of winning over $1,000,000.00 in a standard-form forty-nine number lottery... twice... are a much better.

Your chances of needing medical attention at any level from some sort of "attack" from a ghost or entity is, as slightly stated above, almost zero... and when I say almost zero, I mean two potential (but argued cases,) in the last two-hundred and fifty years in Western Europe and North America... think about that. This means, without a lot of math, your chances of being hit by lightning twice and surviving are considerably better!

HOWEVER...

You don't need to do an indepth study of this... "Google" the following..

+dead +from +exorcism

Select "News" if you'd like.

It's a frightening statistic...

Now, again, you probably don't need an indepth for this either... How many people do you think have suffered fiscally because of fraudulent or worse "house clearers" or dodgey psychics?

What does this all prove?

HONESTLY, you have FAR more to fear from people who say they can "help" you get rid of a "ghost", "spirit", or "entity" then of the thing itself!

So, if you found this page looking to "rid" yourself of something unwanted, PLEASE remember...

FIRST: You have very little to be very worried about... honest.

SECOND: Remember, you're MUCH more likely to be hurt "running away from" or trying to "escape" a ghost then you are by the ghost itself.

THIRD: Make it a mantra... "I Will Not Open My Wallet or Chequebook For Help."

FOUR: Do not believe someone who tells you that THEY must help you... for a fee.

FIFTH: Read this page (click here) for some ideas and suggestions... and even a contact if needed.

After I posted my last blog entry on lacking inspiration and therefore suffering some terrible writer's block I received some helpful advice via one of my kids and through some friends of mine on Facebook. Their advice was quite helpful and aided me in realising a few things.

In part I have to realise that since no one is going to pay to do my assignment nor will anyone write my essay for me I must find the motivation to write within myself. This is not necessairily an easy thing to do, nor should it ever be forced. I will write my paper, and articles when I feel inspired to do so, and genuinely feel I have something to contribute, and stop feeling guilty when I start articles, and blog entries that sit uncompleted. I can always come back to those at a later date.

Thanks guys

Here's a weird one I just (finally) made official... It's something I've always done... and something I know Sue's always done... but not everyone on the PSICAN team does... and that's not use the word "client" to describe the people who contact us.

It's a little thing... a stupid thing in some ways... but the connotation with the word "client" is someone who has paid for a service... effectively, lawyers have clients... as do agents, designers, sales people...

...but we don't charge for out efforts.

...so... "client"? That word just never seemed to fit.

So, the "list" I've given our crew to use from now on is...

• Witness
• Experiencer
• Experient
• Home Owner
• Business Owner
• Tenant
• Person/People Who Reported...

...but "client" is right out!

Sure, it's only an optics thing... but it's one of the little issues that... well... it niggles me and a few other folks on our team.

So, sorry, we no longer have clients... granted, some of us on this team never did... which will be fun, because ten'll get your twenty that as with every other year, someone from the media in October will e-mail us to ask us to interview one of our "clients"... and now, without reservation or explanation, I can say, "Sorry, we don't got none!"

I am not sure how many of you (if anyone) has noticed that I have not been writing articles for the websites or blogging as much as I have in the past. To be honest this lack of productivity is not because I have been busy with other pressing issues that do not allow for me to have the luxury of time to write, which in some ways would be preferable to my present predicament. No gentle reader, the real truth is I have been suffering from a serious case of writer's block.

The type of writer's block I'm suffering is so bad that if I were a student again I might seriously consider an online term paper writing service where you can obtain cheap term papers or risk failing miserably for lack of desire, and inspiration to write anything meaningful.

Normally at this time of year I could blame my lack of interest in writing a research paper or even a simple blog entry on the post Halloween burn-out. However, this past year was relatively quiet than Halloween seasons past, which tend to leave us very drained from various requests by students, and media along with a deluge of ghostly reports.

I'm not certain what is causing this current writing funk, but I hope to get inspired by reading some books I have got on order from the local public library, another book that I have been asked to review, and maybe some internet surfing of sites, and blogs that cover paranormal news, and editorials. Hopefully this strategy will help......

"I need to be a part of your team and you need me!"
Quote from one of 4 similar e-mails sent to us this past week

I know I've covered this before, but things change... and probably the most important change is that we finally have a clear-set rules of governance posted that may help people... but allow me to explain from the beginning...

Many people write in to us and ask to "join the team". Everyone has their own reasons... perhaps they had an experience and want to look into things with a group... some have visions of our work being just like what they've seen on television... some want to experience a thrilling time... some feel they have answers or abilities that would be useful to us... to be honest, there's many reasons... and all of them valid at the time of the request.

This said, the breakdown of our group and being a part of the team works this way...

First and foremost, we're Canadian and based in Canada... If you're from another country, our best advice is a good ol' Google search to find an organisation if available within your area of the world.

For those in Canada who want to work with us, start with the item below...

~ Rules of Governance ~

Please read this document (click here)... It's short and lays out who we are and what we'll do... as well as what we won't do.

~ Cryptozoology ~

If you're interested in looking into cryptozoology, contact Robin at PSICAN... You'll find her contact e-mail on this page (click here) and inquire with her.

~ Ufology ~

If you'd like to look into UFO and related topics, there's two possibilities... One is to work with an established PSICAN investigator or group, or in some cases, work as a PSICAN ufological investigator/researcher.

The best way to be a part of this study through PSICAN (and it's colleague groups,) is to join our message board and get to know the people we work with who are interested in the UFO phenomena as well. Our message board is located at...

http://www.psican.org/messagecentre/
...and is moderated to keep things on topic. Your contact information (and any personal information used to "sign up",) is kept strictly confidential by ourselves. The VIP code to sign up is 1967

Once you do that, find the UFO portions of the board and have a read and join the discussions if you'd like. As stated, if you get to know the team there and perhaps state your interest in "looking into things", one of the PSICAN team leaders will send you details.

~ Psychic/Mind Abilities ~

Right now, although we do have some experiments and tests going on, this is an area we hope to branch into when we have proper facilities for testing. (Right now, PSICAN is strictly "online".)

As stated, however, there are some things we're working on and if you're interested, as with our ufology team, it's best to join our message board where there are sections devoted to psychical and related topics. Our message board is located at...

http://www.psican.org/messagecentre/
...and is moderated to keep things on topic. Your contact information (and any personal information used to "sign up",) is kept strictly confidential by ourselves. The VIP code to sign up is 1967

~ Fortean Topics ~

Like the above fields, although we're interested in Fortean events, it's difficult being strictly "online" to give this study what it needs in terms of resources. Again, it's best to join our message board where there are discussions of Fortean elements ongoing. Our message board is located at...

http://www.psican.org/messagecentre/
...and is moderated to keep things on topic. Your contact information (and any personal information used to "sign up",) is kept strictly confidential by ourselves. The VIP code to sign up is 1967

~ Ghosts and Hauntings ~

This by far is currently the one most people are chomping at the bit to be a part of. It's also the area that there are a lot of group and investigators already involved. There are only two ways of becoming a part of PSICAN's team within this field...

The first is to check our list of affiliated groups and find a group that's located nearest you... then see if they're looking for volunteers and/or help. You can view this page by clicking here.

Subtext: Ontario and Toronto GHRS...

Now, I'm going to be rather specific here... mostly because I'm the founder and one of the current directors of Torontoghosts/Ontarioghosts... and I want to let people know what we do in terms of new folks as BRIEFLY as possible...

#1: If the person interested in joining our team has read our Rules of Governance and Mission Statement carefully and still wish to be a part of the group...

#2: ...they should then read our free online course which some people don't feel is necessary because either they "know all that stuff" or don't care about our methods as they have their own... which is a shame, because in order to be a part of our team, we need to know you're on the same page as the rest of us, so to speak, and you'll need to pass a...

#3: ...free online examination which is linked at the bottom of the page found here (click here) which is based on the free course. If you pass the exam, you're brought on board with the team... if you don't pass the exam, then you must wait until the following December when the new exam is released and try again.

Caveat #1: We don't put up or allow the exams to be taken between late August and mid-December because, sadly, too many people get into the "Halloween Spirit" and sign up only to lose interest by the time Christmas comes along... so to ensure our team is genuinely wanting to be active and working on the study throughout the year, we close the exam during this time. If you're REALLY interested and try to sign-up during this time to find the exam has been removed, we're hoping you'll wait... and understand our position... and we do apologise.

Caveat #2: We don't use psychics, sensitives, or mediums as a "front line" investigative tool in our work. We are documentarians first and foremost. You may have "special abilities" or "gifts" and you may wish to help us with them, but all volunteers have to go through the same process regardless... and indeed, if you do come on board, we may ask that sometimes, you only note your findings with any "gifts" and present them later...

Caveat #3: IN ALL HONESTY... If you think we're like ANY paranormal television show, we are most absolutely not. We are students of this study... and don't operate solely at night nor are we only in "haunted houses", prisons, cemeteries, or the like. If this is what you were hoping for, I guarantee that we're not the group for you.

Caveat #4: Bypassing or missing ANY of the steps above may seem like a good "short-cut", but keep in mind it demonstrates to us a lack of reading, observational, and retention skills necessary for the work we do.

So, with this all in mind, if you want to be a part of the Torontoghosts/Ontarioghosts team, these are rather important steps and considerations... and we hope if we are a "good fit", you'll be a part of our group!

~ All Other Topics Considered "Paranormal" ~

There are more than a few other subjects that people might feel fit into the category of "paranormal", but the above ones (Crypto, Ufology, Fortean, Ghosts, and Psychic Abilities,) are our main focus.

That said, and going back to something that's been a stand-by here, but it is true, if you do wish to discuss a topic I may have missed and perhaps work with us to look into it, join our message board...

http://www.psican.org/messagecentre/
...which is sectioned and moderated to keep things on topic... and we do have places for pretty much all matters of interest! Your contact information (and any personal information used to "sign up",) is kept strictly confidential by ourselves. The VIP code to sign up is 1967

So there you have it... The more-or-less definitive guide to joining in our study with us.

We love to hear your personal experiences with ghosts, and hauntings in the province of Ontario so please do keep sending them in. Your privacy will be protected, and witness comfort is our primary concern.

You may email us directly at submissions AT torontoghosts.org or submissions AT ontarioghosts.org

The Maple Rest Heritage House - New

Philthy McNasty's - Updated

Fergus Phantom Tabby Cat - New

Sweeny Todds - New

Sherway Gardens Toy Shop - New

Galloway Road Private Home - New

Distillery District Toronto - Updated

Enjoy!

I was pleasantly surprised to discover that a reference was made and a link was given to my article on the Philip experiments in an article entitled Ouija Board: Conduit of Evil or Belief? that is featured in ParaNexus. Its an interesting article and I recommend giving it a read along with exploring the rest of the ParaNexus site.

I've discussed my own thoughts on Ouija boards within this blog before, and in a nutshell I really do not think there is anything magical or special about them. I tend to agree with what my friend and colleague Elvis of The Shadows Project has to say about them:

"Ouija boards are made out of crafting supplies. They posses no additional powers except for whatever powers are within the elements that make up the materials themselves."

However, the Ouija is well recognised by most people and featured in numerous works of fiction and horror films so that its appearance alone can produce negative psychological effects particularly as people tend to use them in darkened rooms with candles etc creating a "spooky" atmosphere. Therefore I ALWAYS strongly recommend to already possibly frightened witnesses to not pursue communication or interaction by using these devices because it does tend to stir things up, real or imagined, something for which they may not be mentally or emotionally prepared for, not to mention potentially upsetting to others they live with.

We are proud to join the online peace movement.

"Dona Nobis Pacem" - "Grant Us Peace"

It's been a quiet Hallowe'en on the ghostly front this year... and mercifully so!

Usually, around this time, we're absolutely inundated with media requests and people wanting to "join up" and become ghost hunters or the like for the "Hallowe'en Season". (This latter thing is why Toronto/Ontarioghosts removes our exams between late August and December! Many people neglect to understand that we're looking into things all year round, not just the last two weeks of October!)

This year... well...

We have had SOME media requests... but no where NEAR the levels of the previous five or even ten years!

In fact, it's been oddly silent in the papers, television news, and even radio media in terms of ghostly doin's at all! (Thanks VERY much to our team, especially Robin, who've handled what stuff has come in!)

Odder still is that although the media's "taste" for ghosts has dropped, their appetite for cryptozoology seems to have grown in it's place...

I suppose it's the circle of fickle media paranormal interest... Since the big reality television "ghosts and spirit" shows are losing ratings, and the new cryptozoological reality teevee shows are starting to gain traction and seem to be eating more than a bit of the old ghost-show audience, the news media has shifted focus...

My guess, crypto will be big for a while, then ufology, then ghosts again... it seems to be the way... but it will probably be a number of years before we see media interest like we did three and four years ago... well, save the crypto team at PSICAN!

...and oddly enough, for me, that's okay!

...because what's been nice is that we're getting the "Hallowe'en Level" of interest from witnesses and people visiting the site, and the reports are indeed rolling in as well as photos, audio recordings, and all sorts of "experient details"... this is despite the lack of media coverage from the usual suspects and outlets this year.

So, it's been nice... I can read, answer, and study things... I was even able to do some site updates and edits and start the preliminary work on a rather important and significant study we're a part of...

...and I get to spend a nice, quiet, non-stressful, happy, not-being-bothered-by-last-minute-media-requests Hallowe'en!

It's actually quite lovely... and appreciated... and we're thankful...

In closing, Sue and I hope you're All Hallow's Eve celebrations this evening are happy, fun, and safe this year.

HAPPY HALLOWE'EN!

P.S. - Same thing applies as the post below... This was a bit of an anomalous post, and although we dodged (as did - apparently - many others in our field save the crypto bunch,) the media onslaught, as stated, a lot of you (and others) did send in your reports... and we DO read, watch, listen, and view them all and respond to every one of them. Betwix me and thee, that's a WAY better way of spending an afternoon and a few days as opposed to being asked by reporters and whatnot over and over again, "What's the scariest place in Toronto?" or "Where's the best haunted house we can visit?" while they contemplate asking if you'll sing The Ghostbuster's Theme to open their segment on you.

We're hoping you'll forgive the lack of new blog posts right... but 'tis Hallowe'en time... and ever so much more activity is happening right now...

Well, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it? I mean, this time of year has been seen for time and memoriam as a season where "life" and "death" seem so close to each other... where the plants "die" and the seasons of growth and renewal are at and end, and some animals even seemed to "die" for the long winter months, only to re-appear in the Spring when life begins anew... humans have long felt this is the time when things from "the other side" must be closer.

It aids in this thoughts when we look at the unbelievable amounts of reports we're getting in right now. You wouldn't be odd to think, "My gosh! The ghosts sure seem to be jumping in October!"

Except, is this correct?

Looking through our reports... perhaps not...

The majority of the ones we've been receiving (sometimes several in a single hour!) tend to have lines in them such as...

Back this past Summer...

...and...

My mother told me the she once...

...and...

We were on a ghost tour in August and...

...and...

When I was five years old in the 1970's...

...and, of course...

This has been happening for several months now...

...or words to these effect.

Certainly, we do have some coming in that are "new" and "happening now", but the lion's share are telling us of past experiences or things people have heard in their general journeys in life.

Allow me, as usual, to butt in on my own post... it is NOT a complaint to say that we mostly hear of past experiences... because all the data we receive is useful and helpful. What may be a long-ago experience for one person might be an ongoing issue for someone else, so it's always great to hear about anything via our submitted reports... so please, keep 'em coming!

Okay, where was I?

Oh yes!

What seems to happen in the more "modern world" with reports is that this time of year, people are THINKING about ghosts more... They see them in shop windows, on their neighbours decorated lawns and porches, and of course, in the media.

Things "ghostly" are on the mind of not just the enthusiasts, but the casual enthusiasts, the general population... even the "sceptics". 'Tis the season!

...but are things more "active"?

Statistically speaking, no... More reports come in, yes, but they are a majority of "not current experience" reports.

Is the "veil" thinner right now? Are the legends and myths surrounding Samhain (pronounced "Saw-Win",) somewhat accurate?

...perhaps...

...but perhaps only in the mind's eye thanks to ancient beliefs and traditions.

All Hallow's Eve is indeed a time for ghosties, and ghoulies, and things that go bump in the night, but realistically, only in folklore, on television, the radio, in your local shop's decorations, and in your local newspapers and periodicals... or so it would appear!

...but then again, these are simply my own findings... based on quick statistical analysis of reports that have flooded in since the 20th... and we should all know what Benjamin Disraeli (according to Mark Twain) said about statistics... Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics...

...so perhaps, keep an eye open for ghostly doin's this fine season after all...

FOR THE RECORD: On a quick look, you're more likely to have an experience in the month of August rather than in October... at least in Ontario.

OF NOTE THIS HALLOWEEN SEASON... This will probably be the last blog post prior to early November... because, indeed, Sue's and my dance card is FILLED to capacity already! (In fact, if you're with my friends in the media, Sue and I are BOOKED SOLID... but we will try to hook you up with someone if needed...)

Also, the site updates might be a bit sparse for the next three weeks as we go through the data that (indeed) has poured in to us (as it always does...) so please be patient that way too!

Other than that, have a GREAT Hallowe'en and may the tricker-treaters be fun this year at your home!

Oh, for those outside North America that are only just (over the last couple of decades,) picking up on the whole "Trick or Treat" phenomena, here's a helpful video from BBC's YouTube channel... Click here to view it!

I've kind of made fun of this in the not so distant past... but recently, I was tweaked to thinking about the upcoming point of this post... just not in such "snarky" terms...

I won't re-tell my own tale with too much detail, (click the upcoming link if interested,) but in my research looking into an event that happened to me just outside St.Brides' church in London, England in 1995, I was reading a fun little "ghost tour" book of London (Walking Haunted London by Richard Jones, which I do recommend as it was a fun read,) and it re-told the story of "George", for whom I might have run into while he was on his way to work!

Now, the most important bit about my possible run-in with "George" on his way to his pub...

WAIT! Before continuing and also before anyone writes me, YES, I'm being facetious! I did have the experience, but I couldn't say what caused it and I am certainly not sold it was indeed "George"...

Where was I?

Oh yes...

The important bit of my experience to me was not how the "George-Like-Maybe" fellow scared me... because he didn't... it was how my gut instinct in that second or two of experience was to move out of the way because I was *in* the way. No fear, no "shiver up my spine", no hair standing on end... but a genuine (and typically Canadian) sense of feeling bad about being a burden to someone in a rush as I was standing in their path.

I should point out that I have to consider myself, at the time, not a corrupt target. I was most certainly not expecting to trip over any experiences and was not at St.Brides, nor London in general that year, with the "paranormal" in mind... I was being a tourist only. (Okay, we did take ONE walking tour, but that was AS a tourist!!!)

Boringly back to my point... to be frank, when remembering "George-Like-Maybe"... he could have been any person... living and corporeal... and my initial reaction when he passed was that it was a man in fancy dress and I was being a ninny for being in his way... well... that was my thought until (a) I realised he could not have "disappeared" from view so quickly in any normal means and (b) my partner didn't "see" him as such at all... but heard me "excuse" myself and pondered why I would do so and glance back immediately with no visual on the full "apparition", if that's what "George-Like-Maybe" was.

It would have been easy for many folks to shake this off as a "trick of the light" and that their mind having a game with them... but I'd been in "odd" situations before, mostly thanks to never hiding my early experiences. Most of my friends and acquaintances knew I was "interested" in ghostly phenomena and as such, I'd been trotted out to many "haunts" to have a look around... Using my "going to the woods to see a wild bear" analogy, if you go to enough "haunted places" with any frequency, you will eventually (most likely) have... um... odd experiences... so the run-in with "George-Like-Maybe" although unexpected, was quickly calculated in my noggin... although I wish I knew then what I know now... I could have done a LOT more with that experience then I did... but I digress.

...anyway...

The important bit was my reaction initially was NOT one of "Egads! I'm seeing a ghost!"

Cut to today... and the usual flood of reports that pile in around Hallowe'en time... and noting that out of the thirty-two reports I've seen over the last four weeks, (Sunday-to-Sunday,) only three of them involved a witness being "frightened". Two of those, the witness hypothesized that the experience was "demonic" and "evil" and the other was a concern over possible violence based on the "feeling" of the "energy" when the experiences happened... but thankfully, there had been no directly attributable physical violence from a "paranormal" situation to date.

Now, this is *not* a purely scientific work (it's a blog post,) but to work in general terms, much like 99.999% of sighted apparitions tend to be "solid" (rather than translucent or "see-through",) it seems to me that the vast majority of first-hand experiences tend to be not-all-that-scary...

I've often said, for most people, the first experience is more "off-putting" or "unsettling"... a second experience is usually problematic at worst... by the third and/or fourth experience, the witness or "experiencer" is running TOWARDS the phenomena trying to explain or capture it rather than running away from fear of it.

We often have to tell people not to be too concerned if they are contacting us about "something" in their home or business, because, quite honestly, I can only cite two cases in the last two-hundred years where POSSIBLY the situation grew violent and the "experiencer(s)" were put in a physically dangerous situation that caused a visit to a physician or hospital for wounds "caused by" ghostly(?) phenomena. The most common reasons for physical harm from the paranormal are bumps and bruises from people occasionally trying to "escape" an initial encounter and, sadly, there is a tangible body count attributable to would-be exorcists who have killed their charges by beating, starving, or dehydrating the people they're saving "to death". (One could also possibly add the fiscal damage done by would-be house-clearers who are often only interested in clearing their mark's bank accounts.)

Ounce for ounce, most "ghosts" seem to eventually get on quite well with their house-mates... and indeed, in reading the aforementioned book about "George" and a run-in with a painter working in the basement who raced upstairs concerned about being watched by the spectre, you can see how people can, if given a chance, become rather accepting of their resident phenomena...

"Oh, I shouldn't worry about him," said the landlord reassuringly, "That's the ghost. My wife sees him all the time."

There have been many times when bar staff changing beer barrels in the cellar have turned to see the ghostly cavalier standing in the shadowy recesses. He is accepted by the staff as a harmless fellow resident...

This sounds like a "story"... and it likely is to a degree... but the "attitude" of the staff is probably spot-on with the tale.

So, to you thrill seekers out there... those who are hoping one day for a good scare that might indeed lead to a scatological incident, take note...

...ghosts, often, just aren't all that scary.

Think about what the famed author Isaac Asimov once said...

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ..."

Take it from someone who's done a bit of legwork in the field... the same can be said for ghostly experiences... it's RARE to find a case that began with a scream of terror... but not at all unusual to find cases that start with the phrase, "That was weird."

We're not enforcers! Honest!

This will not be a rant... although to justify what I'm about to write, I do need to pick apart some of the complaints I hear every so often against ourselves... so bear with me.

This weekend past, I had to (finally) put together the effective "rules" that already are more-or-less governing how Paranormal Studies and Investigations Canada does things. Those rules, up until this past weekend, weren't in a single document... so I hammered it out with help from Sue. The nice bit is, internally, amongst our volunteers, it's been met with not just acceptance, but an unexpected amount of praise to myself and Sue for finally banging it out so well! (...and only a couple of modest revisions suggested and adopted!)

You can have a look at it by clicking here.

To kind of re-iterate again, the document is about how we do things... not how we're telling other people to do things... in fact, that's why right at the beginning, I made sure it says...

This document is an internal document that is applicable only to PSICAN proper and it’s directly related websites and groups. It is not applicable to our affiliate groups or any group outside of the directly related PSICAN groups.

We don't assume nor do we pretend we're "in charge" or any sort of quasi-enforcer to the other people who are looking into things around Canada... but we did want people to know this is how we, the volunteers working within PSICAN, do things.

Now, in all honesty, I think it would be grand if every group or investigative team (or even solo-investigator,) had a document like this that anyone could have a look at... if nothing else, to let others, especially witnesses or "experiencers", know what they hold dear and what they will or will not do.

Still, even saying the above has probably raised an eyebrow with some folks around these parts, (I'm controlling, doncha know?) but what the heck, I can toss it out there... for better or worse... after all, it's up to those others if they think there's merit in the suggestion... if they may choose to adopt, adapt, and/or improve to their uses.

For now, it's what we've done... and as with all our things, we'd love your feedback... so let us know what you think if you have some time.

One of the first lectures on the topic of ghosts, and hauntings that Matthew gave was at Ryerson University here in Toronto, and was more than ten years ago. What really stood out about this particular speaking engagement was it was heavily attended by nurses, and nursing students some even wearing their nursing scrubs making their occupation and/or course of study very obvious to the casual observer.

Later we thought of course, its obvious why so many nurses attended .... while cemeteries are overly represented in ghostly fiction, in reality it is hospitals, hospices, and long term care facilities that tend to yield more reports of hauntings than any other type of public building. It is also therefore no wonder that we have more health care providers volunteering for PSICAN then any other profession.

Nursing is a demanding profession and requires much care and dedication. Many of these hospital ghosts are not former patients, but nurses still seen in there scrubs clothing or old fashioned uniforms roaming the corridors and still caring for their patients long after they are physically gone.

* This blog entry is brought to you by our friends at Blue Sky Scrubs who provide high quality cheap scrubs through their secure online shop.

Over the weekend I watched a documentary on the recommendation of an SPR member that involved past life regression, and an investigation afterwards into the information retrieved.

It start off with a UK fireman who undergoes hypnotic regression out of curiosity. While under he comes forward with an elaborate "past life" of being a well off rural landowner in the mid 1700s who after the death of his wife loses everything and ends up killing a bill collector.

The memories are so real to him when he awakens from the session and weeks afterward that they leave him emotionally shaken, and driven to find out if he can prove his past life actually occurred.

Armed with a name, some rough dates, a detailed sketch of his former home and lands, and the town he felt this all happened in he approached a genealogist who was able to supply a handful of likely candidates as a starting point.

As the investigation continued he began hitting brick walls and his past life memories began unraveling.......

His father recognized the sketch as a view from their former family home. They were able to go back and compare the sketch with the actual view today, and they were very similar despite the fireman not having seen this view since he was 5 years old. Other bits of the Fireman's current life became very suggestive of his past life, his "wife" dying early - his this lifetime Mom dying early causing him to rebel and suffer terribly etc etc etc

By the end it is fairly clear that the past life was actually a very creative imagining from his subconscious knitted together out of this lifetimes events.

Was fascinating!

I don't think the documentary can take away from those cases that do seem to point strongly to an actual historical person, but it is food for thought.

The strong emotional response to the regression and later the obvious disappointment of the fireman as he comes to grips with his past life unraveling is also interesting to note. He actually says the whole investigation was for shit. I disagree.

Earlier today the topic of ghost cars and urban legends came up on our Facebook group. The question was posed by one of our regular group members to a newer group if they would investigate a case involving a ghost car and a ghost driver picking up a passenger.

The group in question said they were unable to investigate urban legends, or one-time spontaneous cases of possible paranormal origin. I tend to agree that any investigation of such a report would be very limited in scope, but (and just like urban legends) they are important to not, and document in case of any repeat occurrences. For instance what if you had a similar report of a vanishing car of similar description say like a Chevrolet Silverado or other distinctive model, on the same stretch of road, that you may then be able to trace a potential history to it.

Ghost cars, like many other inanimate objects do have their ghostly counterparts, which brings up all sorts of questions that are beyond the scope of this humble blog entry. Well at the least we can assume ghostly cars would not need major repairs like a brake job or would they.....

*This blog entry is brought to you by our friends at RepairPal, please do check them out especially if you are in need of Dallas auto repair sources.

We love to hear your personal experiences with ghosts, and hauntings in the province of Ontario so please do keep sending them in. Your privacy will be protected, and witness comfort is our primary concern.

You may email us directly at submissions AT torontoghosts.org or submissions AT ontarioghosts.org

College Park - The Carlu Toronto - Updated

Private Residence Markham - New

Lakeshore West Private Apartment Toronto - Updated

Private Residence Jarvis Area Toronto - New

Private Residence Bellamy Road South Scarborough - New

Private Residence Barrie - New

Newmarket Farmhouse - New

Enjoy!

Defining things sometimes is annoying... especially when you feel there's probably no need for a definition and that, indeed, most folks should understand the basic principals of certain things without having them laid out in any way. The real trouble is, within the "paranormal investigative/research community", there is a bit of a disconnect with the idea of review, criticism, and the sense of being attacked.

Now, thankfully, we've dodged this bullet of late and not had too many run-ins with folks for any reason... but this is also because we've had to self-muzzle when we've wanted to present data that we know would upset certain folks... and yes, in some ways... many ways... that's wrong... because we are occasionally holding back things we know are true (and verifiable) to keep a silly sense of peace.

Right now, we're watching not one, but three other folks (groups, to be exact,) we know start down a really bad path which can be... well... almost a bit destructive. I don't want to get into gory details, but it's because of them not grasping the ideas of those three words... "Review", "Criticism", and "Attack".

First, allow Merriam-Webster to help me out...

REVIEW: An act or the process of reviewing, a retrospective view or survey, a renewed study of material previously studied or an exercise facilitating such study.

So, to "review" someone's work is to simply re-study it... an effective "new look" at something that's already out there.

CRITICISM: The art of evaluating or analyzing works, the scientific investigation of literary documents, an observation or remark.

So, a "criticism" is an evaluation of something previously done and the remarks about it afterwards.

Last but not least...

ATTACK: To set upon or work against forcefully, to assail with unfriendly or bitter words, to begin to affect or to act on injuriously.

So, for lack of anything better, an "attack" is... an attack. It's the act of being not very nice. Nothing more, and most certainly nothing less.

Allow me to give you some diagrams to follow...

(Insert a: )

_______________________________________________

...or, to give a more tangible example...

(Insert b: )

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

Seems reasonable enough, and with more review and criticism, a possible actual answer that stands up to all scrutiny will be found!

The trouble is, this is how the above is read by many... far too many...

(Insert c: )

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

...or worse.

...and if anyone thinks this is "just us" here, boy are you wrong. (Please, do not get grumpy with that observation! Head to any large message board and you'll find similar somewhere about someone...)

The problem is this...

Many people forget that if they publish anything, especially publicly, and make any claim, it will probably be challenged... and that CAN be a good thing for all involved... unless you see yourself in "Insert C" above..

Many people publish reviews and/or criticisms without taking into account the sensibilities of the "opposing" number who is being reviewed or criticised... which, if you think about it, shouldn't be THAT big a deal because, hey, if you're in the public eye and make a statement, you should be willing to support the claim with the data you have... but again, remember, this is a study based a LOT on faith and belief... two VERY strong things. As much as we can ask, in a perfect world, for everyone to stick with the hard data only, for many it's the equivalent of asking a fundamentalist Christian to imagine "Christ isn't walking with you... just for a second"... it won't happen... and people should keep this in mind when reviewing or critiquing things.

...but...

If you're a SERIOUS researcher and/or investigator, you should welcome CONSTRUCTIVE review and criticism on your work... and either defend it based on the data ONLY (never the personalities involved) or work towards eliminating possible holes in the fabric of your data to make it more complete.

...that's the perfect world... but... well, here's how it's worked for me.

Them: We published this document and we think "X" is "Y"!

Me: Okay, but what if "X" is "Z"... or even "A"... or perhaps "X" doesn't exist at all? Have you looked into all these possibilities?

Do I need to finish this... or can you hear the screaming, cursing, and genuine hatred towards me, the great heretic, already?

As another example (not me but I saw it transpire...)

Them: Buy tickets to go on a ghost thing that NO ONE has EVER DONE BEFORE in this famous haunted locale!

Person 'A': Well, it has been done before... and often... here's where and here's how.

Them: {Delete Person 'A's comment and ignore them.}

Okay, now this was a "for profit" thing... and it was to earn those involved some dosh... but then anyone might ask, by doing this, are you suppressing the evidence? Are you hiding the truth? If you're asking people to pay to find something with you, shouldn't you be honest?

From poor history from "historians" which cannot be questioned (because questions are "attacks",) to bad science coming from those who claim "scientific experience" (but again, no questions... that's attacking,) many people looking into this topic can not or, more likely, are unwilling to accept criticism and review... because either it may cut into their profits, their chances of fame, or they won't get to feel "as smart" as they were...

...even though, with proper review and criticism, they might learn more, find out more, answer questions they may not have thought of, and overall, do a better job and service to this study (amongst others!)

"Criticisms" should not be ad hominem attacks (against the person or people) but should be critiques of the data intended to make people think or do better.

"Reviews" should also not be little more than non-constructive criticism, but a genuine look at with positive and/or negative feedback with an eye to what was wrong and/or right with what's being reviewed... suggestions should be welcome as well!

In closing, however, if you tell me that The War of 1812 happened between 1923 and 1931, it is NOT an attack on my part to correct you, and cite sources... it's a genuine wish that, indeed, the facts are put out for those interested.

...and if you DO STILL DECIDE to say The War of 1812 happened between 1923 and 1931, I promise that my response will NOT be, "Well, what do you expect from mouth breathers who can't tie their shoes and who probably cheat on their taxes!", but again, I'll question the data... and bring my evidence to the fore... and hopefully, you can either correct me (if you have the information to cite,) or perhaps I can show you...

This isn't "controlling"... it's "helping".

AGAIN, if you put something "out there" in the public, expect review... expect criticism... accept it, adopt it, adapt it, and improve...

Dismiss personal attacks and things said that are not relevant to your data.

GRANTED, you can ignore this entire article if you're only interested in the study of the paranormal for your own amusement... and don't care about the truth, possible alternative hypothesis or answers, and don't want to have less flawed work out there for the masses to see...

...but then, do us all a favour... call yourself ANYTHING but "researcher" or "investigator". Don't even suggest you're actually in the field for any other reason than some bizarre egocentric weirdness... and let us know, TRUTHFULLY why you're interested.

You want fifteen minutes of fame ONLY? There's people who'll still follow you if that's your goal... you don't have to make the false claims of being genuine in your interest.

You want to make MILLIONS? Then be honest and say it out loud, "Show Me The Money!" Again, you can shelve any semblance of altruism... at least you'll be honest, if nothing else, and yes, people still like entertainment.

Do you KNOW what these things are and are only more or less going through the motions to preach your belief to the masses? Fine... but again, let us know... don't cloak yourself in any sort of term like "study" or "investigation"... If you already know what you're looking at, why pretend you're looking any deeper than normal?

Are you genuinely interested in finding out more about these things that are considered "unknown"? Then again, accept, adopt, adapt, and improve... and share with us all... and consider yourself a legitimate and proper investigator or researcher.

Sue and I will still (mostly) keep a civil tongue in our head... for now... but to those "in the field", consider this notice... We may start questioning... yup, that's right, we might start reviewing... and even offering criticism... we will NEVER attack, it will be about the data... it may be YOUR data, but it's the data we will question... and if that's gonna be a problem, I don't know what to say to you.

Basically, if you're calling yourself a "researcher", "investigator", or even a "historian", "folklorist", "scientist", "physicist", or anything like that... and you publish something we see an error with... it JUST MIGHT be questioned.

One hopes if we continue to keep our fingers off the keyboards at those moments, other's will take up the cause... and battle back against hearsay, conjecture, and just plain "made up stuff" presented as "FACT" with evidence, citable sources, and indeed... REAL facts.

...because we need less attacking, more reviewing and even more critical analysis in this field.

The witnesses will appreciate it. Your colleagues will appreciate it. And the study as a whole will definitely benefit from it.

In Addenda: Already got a question... Is this one way, or do YOU expect review and critisism?...

The answer is, OF COURSE! Provided it's constructive, not ad hominem attacks... and it's about an article or paper of ours that's based on the data therein with examples and citations brought to the fore... not simply based on conjecture or personal belief sent in to us as "fact".

Basically, if we made a boo-boo... if we didn't cover something properly... if we ignored something... yes, we do want to know about it! We appreciate that as, again, it's help!

Many years ago, I heard something that made a lot of sense to me.

One of the Apollo astronauts, I've forgotten which one, was asked if NASA was hiding information pertaining to the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Without missing a beat, this fellow replied that he found that unlikely, because if they had found something, they'd trumpet it from the hilltops because it would mean a massive increase in funding.

This makes sense... whether you believe it or not... I will admit that I actually do believe that NASA is not hiding any evidence... but that is an opinion.

Now, allow me to move into what might seem like a non-sequitur...

Recently, I had a scare. One Thursday morning, very recently, I was en route to work when I felt a strange feeling in my chest. It wasn't painful, but more like a severe case of butterflies combined with a bit of light-headedness. I assume I treated it like anyone... ignored it... hoped it would pass... and pressed on with life. I worked my job that day, and the next day, all the time feeling "jittery" and feeling my pulse race... but again, I just thought it might be a "bug" or something.

Finally, on Sunday, I took my family to the Canadian National Exhibition... not for rides and games so much, but because they have a plethora of deep-discount warehouse shops during the event, and it saves a tonne in "back to school" expenses. While Sue and the young'un were shopping, I sat down... and became increasingly faint... started to sweat... and within a couple of hours and four "stores", I had the rather disconcerting experience of almost passing out and doing a "face plant" into a metal barrier outside one of these warehouse outlets... and asked Sue to help me to the doctor's at St. Joseph's Hospital in Toronto's West end.

Sue rushed me in to the hospital very concerned for me and despite my protestations of needing nothing more than a "once over" in a clinic, I was taken to the emergency room... and from there, quickly taken into the cardiac ward... and within minutes was hooked up to an electrocardiogram (ECG) with a blood pressure unit having full blood work done in the resuscitation room... it was almost bewildering, and rather quietly scary.

In the end, I was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation... which, thankfully, is a long way from fatal if caught and treated... but because of my stupid "working through it" for a few days, they cannot treat it as normal (for fear of blood clots in my heart,) so instead of those paddles you see on TV (which they use in these cases to stop then re-set the heart,) I was eased into a slower heart rate with medication. To sum up, I'm still fibrillating while writing this... and my doctor has wryly told me to "Not Play Hockey" for the next little while (must keep the blood pressure and heart rate down,) and make some serious changes to my lifestyle... which I have. I see the cardiologist for further treatment in nine days from today.

Like I said, a little scary... and very much like a formal dress rehearsal for an event that I'd sooner not take part in... at least not yet... and to be frank, being in a hospital, in a gown, lying in a bed near the forms for my loved ones to fill out, "just in case", for my organs to be donated should the worst happen while being mildly (very gently) verbally spanked by the nurse for not coming in earlier for treatment is bad... Having all these done while Sue and the kid are watching was worse in some ways... not for me, but for Sue.

Before diagnosis, my mind had little option than remembering me, at the age of seventeen, watching my father pass away from a massive heart attack... and as such, here I was... in a similar room to the last one I saw him in before the funeral. He was already gone, unhooked from the machines, the tube still in his mouth... and here I was...

...and looking at the foot of the bed, being very conscious and alert while these tragic memories streamed into my head, I was seeing Sue looking at me... visibly worried... and I kept thinking about how I could keep her from having that same vision save me instead of my dad... and how very much I felt like a slab of meat on that bed, not because of my treatment (which was fantastic and super-quick on the part of the hospital,) but because of the lack of control over my fate.

I tried to crack as many jokes as possible... and stay light-hearted... and make Sue aware of the wonderful science at work... and how the staff didn't seem all too worried once they were lowering my heart rate. For her part, she kept a brave face... often saying if bad things might come, I was in the best place for them to happen.

Thankfully, as stated, I never did lose consciousness... and I am okay... and my illness is not "terminal" by a long shot... and even now is simply mildly annoying (no stamina sucks!)... so all that drama above was for not... still experienced and "real", but the anguish over it was unneeded.

Moving forward, thanks to some family and friends, word had quickly spread that I was in the hospital for a heart problem... so, being a thoroughly modern guy, I updated my Facebook status to let everyone know that I was home and "okay"... and even did a post on the PSICAN message board... trying to be my traditional self cracking the joke that the event proved without doubt that I was human and, contrary to some beliefs, had a heart... and it occasionally misbehaved!

People were genuinely nice and messaging me wishing me well, offering their own stories, and generally being caring...

NOW, off on a another seeming non-sequitur...

A few months back I was cruising some "paranormal" message boards... now, I don't often brag, but I will say this... I am, if nothing else, often spoken of and quoted in and around the realm of paranormal investigation, which is really nice... well, most of the time... and in this one case, I had to giggle...

The person was complaining that I was thwarting their work in Ontario and "keeping back" information and contacts so they couldn't be wahoo ghost hunters. (Betwix me and thee, I have references that will back up what I'm about to say and if you haven't read my stuff, allow me to elucidate... I often give any information I can to those who ask within legal abilities... and have several documents on starting... and I do believe there's always room for new folks at the "paranormal table", so to speak... ALSO, looking through my back e-mail, I'd never received anything from this fellow... not one note... no e-mail... no posting to our message board... nothing. He had DECIDED that this was the case, without trying to ask... take this as you will.)

Well, after giggling a bit with Sue about this posting, I changed my Facebook status to something like...

Matthew James Didier has come to the sad realisation that if he were to die in the near future, there would be people in the paranormal community who'd be angry with him for withholding his new-found knowledge of what happens after death and blame him for his lack of papers, articles, and communication post-mortem on his selfish need to keep this information to himself for his own nefarious plans!

I'm guessing on reading this, you know where I'm heading with this post...

...because... cut back to the present day...

I had a "friend" on Facebook... which, to be honest, I really didn't know that well. I actually am pretty stingy with friend requests as I really use Facebook for family, good friend, and work communications only... Oh, there is a PSICAN Facebook group and if someone needed to pick my brain, that's the best location to do so... but when I first started, I was a little less discriminating and let bloggers and acquaintances "friend" me... not a horrible thing... but this "friend" I'm about to speak of was part of that first group.

Other than seeing her occasional Farmville posts and the like, I really hadn't heard from her (ever)... but after my run-in with the hospital, she sent me a message through Facebook asking about my hospital visit and more specifically, "What was it like?"

Now, this wasn't uncommon... many people were contacting me asking about things... so I took it as nothing more than somewhere between Are you okay? to I'm concerned because you're my age and... or the like... which was again, not out of the ordinary after all was said and done.

My response was short, but succinct... "Scary." (with a "happy face" emoticon or smilie tacked on... as much as one can do with only text options available...)

She responded a day later asking me again what it was like... Now, I was STILL assuming this was the equivalent of I've gone through something similar and want to know what your experience was like? or that type of thought...

So I responded... very nuts and bolts about what happened. To be honest, you reading the above know more that I told her! I went through the "butterflies" in my chest, the fainting spell, being in the hospital, being cardioverted via drugs (medicated to slow my heart,) and that was it. Nuts and bolts... oh, and I let her know that I was awake, conscious, not in pain, a little frightened, and cracking jokes through the whole experience... That was all.

Well, I found out quickly what she meant...

...and remember the story about my Facebook status... about how if I died, people would be grumpy?

She let me know that she *knew* I was "holding back"... and that I was not "acknowledging the truth"... and then went on to tell me how bad I was for not being forthcoming about my NDE or "Near Death Experience" and letting people know that the beyond the veil was a wonderful place.

She wanted me to tell you all about the marvellous white light, seeing my loved ones to help me through it, and all those good things... and, to be honest, came across as rather cross with me that I had withheld and refused to let people know about my wonderful experience. I was, in essence, keeping you all in the dark and that made her wonder what my evil motives MIGHT be for holding back such glorious stuff...

...only one problem...

...as you now know...

My NDE she feels I had? The light? The tunnel? My ancestors and loved one's coming for me?

It never happened.

I never completely lost consciousness. I didn't "flat-line". I didn't temporarily die.

In honesty, despite my worries... despite my internal fears... despite seeing the word "IRREGULAR" flashing across the ECG monitor while I was on it right to the very end... there wasn't much to report... at least, in terms of "The Other Side" in any way, shape, or form.

Now, remember my story about the Apollo astronaut?

If you have read any of my work, you know that a big issue for me is the lack of respect, proper attention, and funding our studies get...

If I ever did have an NDE (classical or otherwise,) you may take my word... you'd know about it.

I'd try very hard to tell you all NOTHING more than what I experienced as "raw data"... Sort of like, I saw this. I experienced this sensation. I heard this. without hypothesis as to causation, without taint... and YES, I would be open to all possible hypothesis as to these event's causation... including it was all imaginary...

...because, honestly, that's what I am. I want the truth... hard facts... empirical answers... not conjecture.

I expect that from others, I expect that from myself, even to my own questions.

I do feel there's enough data to make the idea of something surviving bodily death worth examining... and genuine study... and if I thought I had relevant data on anything, I would share it with everyone... and let everybody poke at it.

I don't.

Not yet.

Anyway, there's another lesson here too... because I defriended this person on Facebook... not because of her zealous belief... not because of her distrust of my answers (God knows there's more than a few who still think I'm doing this for some sort of "angle" for personal gain or the like.)... but because it was a personal thing... and even *IF* I did have any experience, which I honestly didn't, shouldn't it be up to me to decide when/how I'd bring it to you?

As stated, the evidence is there to prove there isn't a "tale to tell" with this incident (re: my opening bit about NASA,) but if there was, and considering my family was involved... intimately... through all parts... is it anyone's right or even privilege to demand my absolute obedience in publicly telling all?

Here's a tip to anyone taking the Torontoghosts/Ontarioghosts exam... There's an "automatic fail" question... and it's about ethics and morality when dealing with a personal case... If you answer it with guns blazing demanding to "know more" or to immediately start investigating the case without pause to ensure everyone's ready to move forward with an examination of things (especially those intimately involved) and handling the whole situation (regardless) with tact and decorum, instant fail. I don't want you on my team. You will upset our witnesses and cause trouble.... and without witnesses, we're nothing.

If we can't work with people... or people feel they can't trust us with their information... what good are we?

It was interesting to be on the other end of that... having someone thumping ME for my information (faulty as they had it,) to be made very public... it made me glad of our strict stance.

Rule One in PSICAN... since day one... The safety, security, and general comfort level of a witness must come first.

...and sorry folks... I am still alive... and not under any major threat of "pining for the fjords" in the days to come... and no, I do not have any personal evidence of "life after death" that has been hidden away for any reason.

Worse yet for some people... I'm probably going to come out of this 100% okay... meaning, no, I won't be stopping my work and efforts anytime soon.

Addendum: Some people have promises made to loved ones or the like that we will try to come back après-mort and give some sort of message to let whoever's behind know that they're okay, (most famously, Harry Houdini is said to have expressed a message, "Rosabelle believe.", that he would deliver to his wife should he pre-decease her,) and history is replete with "ghosts" that have made some sort of contact...

Me... should I become a "disembodied spirit"?

Well...

I have a lot of dates to keep post-mortem personally thanks to my younger years... and if there was anything "recent", it would be strictly between Sue and myself... and probably not available for the masses... but when I die many, many years from now, if Sue suddenly kicks-up her efforts into ghosts and hauntings, that might be a clue.

So please, do not attempt to contact me... If I have something to say, I'll contact you...

...and Sue has promised that if I pre-decease her and she's pestered by anyone for an update on my life after death in any fashion, then she will become violent... with my personal blessing... pre, and I'm certain, post my demise!

On Saturday, I posted this on the PSICAN message board found via the Huffington Post...

STATESVILLE, N.C. — Authorities say a man who was waiting with several friends for a "ghost train" from a North Carolina legend was killed when a real train came down the tracks.

Now, I admit... I made comments about how I hate having to plead with would-be ghost hunters to "play it safe"...

...and how when people don't play it safe, it taints us all because one person's "ghost hunter" is another person's "ghost enthusiast" is another person's "paranormal investigator" to the masses... and when stupidity happens, it's seen as systemic rather than the act of the individual...

...and then I commented on the new danger of people who might want to see if a "new" ghost has happened because of this and in turn, put themselves in danger's path...

...and then Sue reminded me.

This person had parents. Possibly a significant other. Maybe a sibling... and now, they are gone for whatever reason.

She too sees the stupidity, but reminded me of one thing...

As much as I keep trying to tell would-be ghost hunters that their actions reflect on us all (as shown above,) perhaps I should remind them that they have loved ones... and their actions, if silly and especially unsafe, may have a profound affect on them.

...because as much as I do feel sorry for this person's parents and friends for their loss...

...I can only imagine how they feel, at the funeral, standing by the casket, thinking that they took a final and losing chance to see a ghost.

Was it worth it to the victim...?

...'cuz I think I can speak for those left behind...

It wasn't worth it to them.

So thinking back on all those that have come to harm by "dabbling" in this hobby of ours... PLEASE be smart... Be safe... Think ahead... and if there's any doubt, DON'T.

This planet needs no help in the creation of new ghostly lore because of a stupid or reckless act.

We love to hear your personal experiences with ghosts, and hauntings in the province of Ontario so please do keep sending them in. Your privacy will be protected, and witness comfort is our primary concern.

You may email us directly at submissions AT torontoghosts.org or submissions AT ontarioghosts.org

Hope Island Lighthouse - New with photos

Meaford Tank Range - Updated with new photos of "blue eyes" grave site.

Darlington Provincial Park - New and looking for further information.

King Edward Hotel - Updated

Jester's Court - Updated

Enjoy!

We've often said that one of the truly annoying things about many (thankfully not all) in the "paranormal community" is the intense focus on effect rather than cause... the over-concentration on recording 'spooky sounds' or snapping the photo that shows a blurry shadow that shouldn't be there, and when they have something, the work stops. They present and then dislocate their shoulders patting themselves on the back for the "good work" they've done...

In our eyes, this isn't half the work that needs to be done...

...and this post is not another rant...

...well, save that first bit.

No, what needs to be done now is to find out why and how.

Why is there a strange sound caught on my tape or recorder? How did it get there since I didn't hear it when I was recording and/or I can't account for it because no one or no thing should have made the sound that I recorded?

Why is there a strange shadow in my picture? How did it get there since I can't account for it in any way to the best of my abilities?

You see, the photo and recording are the effect... it's the cause, if discovered, that will actually move the understanding of these things forward.

It's simple to display things and say, "Wowee!" and stop... it is much more difficult to look into the real mystery and find answers... it's even more difficult to look into those possibilities if they don't jive with a cherished belief or faith...

...but that's science... or, more appropriately, that's what science should be. Ignoring personal preference to find the patterns in things and then explain them with a neutral or "agnostic" eye.

This really should be vital... because if we are all trying to get close to the same goals in the paranormal, (a better understanding of events considered paranormal in nature,) then we need a predictive model.

Here's how that works... it's really about "Step Three" below...

Step One: Odd event occurs.

Step Two: Odd event happens in a way that it can be captured in some way or measured.

Step Three: Odd events can be predicted (as to when they're happening) to allow for continued and third-party measurements and observations.

Step Four: Through predictive models, the root cause for the events can be examined and hypothesis/experiments worked up to move from hypothesis to (possibly) genuine theory.

So, going back to "Step Three" above, we really need to be able to predict when and how things will happen in order to find those patterns and move forward into possible "accepted" explanations for certain kinds of paranormal events.

I hated putting accepted above in quotes, but I do know there's a large portion of the interested populace who feel no explanation is needed because it's already determined... Sadly, the one's that are firm in their belief that UFOs are all aliens and/or ghosts are the spirits of the dead as examples are blissfully unaware that there's an equal number that feel all UFOs are wind-caught plastic bags and/or all ghosts are hallucinations... Neither is right... and neither are wrong... unless it's proven... but still, they feel that they don't need to work towards a greater acceptance and understanding of their own point for that massive majority of people, those that need substantiated evidence, to make a decision...

Sorry, I digressed into a semi-rant there... I'm back now...

In order to gain access to equipment and resources, we need to be able to say to certain communities (especially academia) that we have found a predictive model, we are starting to measure the events, and we do have a working hypothesis and experiment to find out if we're on the right track... and we need to be able to reproduce these events for anyone... especially for peers to work with for possible other hypothesis and efforts.

The predictive model is essential... because no one with an IQ better than a treat one might find in an unclean cat box doubts that people do experience things they feel are paranormal... it's truly the causation of these experiences where there is discord amongst most.

Is it all hallucinations or worse? Is it mistaken identities? Is it wishful thinking? Is it "supernatural"? Is it something else?

Once we can predict things, we can start to unravel the mystery and examine it properly.

It with this in mind why I do keep going on about Dr. Barrie Colvin's recent work...

If you're really, Really, REALLY interested in the field of ghosts, hauntings, and poltergeists... or even anomalous sounds... his work should really be at the top of your "Interest List" at the moment.

This could not only "prove" (empirically) that recorded poltergeist rappings are not "natural" in causation as we currently understand it, but looking at the overall possibilities, it may allow us to start looking into sound and how sound travels (environmental variables, etc.) and possibly help build that elusive predictive model for recording these things...

That's exciting to me personally... and might be to you... and should be to serious investigators and researchers.

So, to anyone out there "looking into things"... remember...

Look for patterns. Try to figure out a way to predict events. Document all you can...

...and please share when possible so we can all work together.

Let me start off today with something decidedly not paranormal... of which, perhaps I should warn the gentle reader, I will need to often tread outside the realm of the paranormal several times during this entry.

Sue and I are avid documentary watchers. We love anything we can watch on other cultures, history, physics, criminology, medicine, psychology, and of course, the paranormal... but the paranormal, as stated, is not where I'm starting here.

We were excited when we heard Dr. Zahi Hawass, head of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, was involved in a show called "Chasing Mummies", a "reality" program about looking into Egyptian archeology.

We eagerly waited and thanks to a friend "in the industry", received a DVD of the first episode... and watched... or tried to...

Sue and I are not regular watchers of "reality teevee" at all of any sort... We do like documentaries to be certain, but we found out during this show just how far the idea of a documentary was from "reality television".

Before continuing, if us not knowing this in some way makes some people think we're slow on the uptake, I would remind... other than occasional "Idol" viewing and rare "Survivor" viewing,... the latter of which we knew to be somewhat directed... we don't watch much television at all... and stay pretty much to news and docs... so this was indeed new to us. We're not up on our modern pop-culture.

"Chasing Mummies" was very obviously scripted... or poorly ad-libbed at best. It was painfully directed (micro-directed even,) and had all the genuine look and feel as a bowl full of dollar-store plastic bananas. It was so bad that, indeed, the things Sue and I have read about Dr. Hawass before (and his exploits) now seem more likely to be possibly... "played up"? "Exaggerated"? Even possibly outright un-truths?

It was insulting... not only to the subject and possibly Dr. Hawass in hind-sight... but to the viewer as well.

Yes, it was THAT bad.

On Friday, the same friend shared with me a relatively new paranormal reality teevee show... well, it didn't SEEM to be a reality teevee show based on the write-up... and my friend hadn't watched it before giving it to me.

The show is called, "Fact or Fake: The Paranormal Files" and here's what the write-up said...

Ex-FBI agent Ben Hansen and his team attempt to debunk or authenticate Web videos and photos involving supernatural activities.

Well, other than realising most people would only be able to claim something was a "Likely Fraud", "Mistaken Situation", or "Unknown Causation" at best (that is, without a declaration of intentional hoaxery by the person who put forward the photo or video -OR- with hard evidence to support a fraud,) the show still sounded okay... and I suspected it would be about looking at videos or photos, dissecting them, and then giving a "likely hypothesis" as to authenticity.

I was wrong.

It's another Hawass-Like reality program... and I managed to watch about six minutes or so of it before needing to switch it off and walk away.

The opening was not like a serious documentary or even a serious show about educating the public... no... it was a cheap music-video style opening specifically designed for those with severe attention deficiencies.

During this montage of loud, we're introduced to the team...

We have, the team lead... who's more than a bit young to be a former FBI investigator... and upon investigation, there's a chance that he may not have been a full-time member of the Bureau as is... his biography, as one person pointed out, simply states he worked with the FBI... not for the FBI... and is currently a systems analyst for a non-profit company... so there's some doubt there. Oh, and as a bonus, he's another one of that rare breed of investigators... someone most of us have never heard of (no publications, no papers, no known body of work,) who has been doing this for almost his whole life... not adult life... almost his WHOLE life. According to himself on the show, he's been investigating the paranormal since he "was ten years old". Imagine that... So he was an apparent child protege.

The rest of the team is either an amazing stroke of casting... or something's a little odd. Basically, two attractive young women and two fit young guys. If these folks have serious credits to their abilities and skills, they weren't made clear... and upon watching this, I did seriously wonder... was this a legit team... or someone finding work for some attractive friends?

The latter seemed more likely as the show rolled on in dreck-like fashion...

Within seconds, it became painfully clear, like the Hawass show, that the entire program was directed and scripted... and rather poorly acted.

Where the train wreck FLEW off the rails for me as a serious investigator and researcher was the team "viewing" their first video...

It was one I've seen before... a video of some woods that, suddenly, features a shadow of some sort seemingly move (at a distance... on a guess, twenty or more feet from the camera,) between the photographer/camera and the trees. As it passes, it does distort the trees... and moves off from right to left... possibly taking a second or two.

As the image rolls full screen for us on our television (after a lame-duck scripted introduction that's presented to us as "fly-on-the-wall" real,) we hear gasps and almost shouts of interest and... yeah... fear.

They re-run the image and through some camera-cuts, we eventually see the team talking loudly and excitedly as if they'd just witnessed the first successful attempt at cold fusion... semi-shouts from being scared to one of the young ladies getting up from her chair and asking everyone to "Go back! Go back!" in an almost semi-comical, badly acted fashion... because it was just that compelling.

It was at this point, I made the decision to switch it off... because I had to ask myself... If this is how the director is telling them how to act in a closed space environment watching a YouTube video, how bad WILL it be when they're supposedly in the field?

Wishing to avoid further anger and frustration... not to mention losing an hour of my life... I stopped the playback.

Now, I am aware the ratings for all the big "paranormal reality" shows are swirling the proverbial bowl (probably because of the over-dramatic acting/situations they're scripted and directed into and the over saturation of the market with these programs,) and that if we go by the official numbers, many of these horror shows ("horror shows" for the wrong reasons, I might add,) will soon be gone... unless the networks like bleeding cash and viewers.

Still, after all this, I got to thinking... Is it possible to do a good and meaningful show on the paranormal?

I used to continuously cite the original "In Search Of..." as a good example as it tended to tell the story, interview those involved, present the information, and allow the viewer to come to any conclusions with very few bells, whistles, or the crap that modern production teams FEEL (or "think") is necessary to reach viewers.

Right now, personally, I'm re-watching "The Day The Universe Changed" with James Burke... which is not about the paranormal (although occasionally, Mr. Burke ends up commenting on the Victorian interest in spiritualism,) but is expertly presented, entertaining, insightful, educational, and most importantly, interesting.

The show treats the viewer with respect... and the presentation has moments of humour and occasional bells and whistles, but stays to it's narrative... and if you're interested in science and technology and have not seen any of James Burke's programs, you're missing out!

Sue and I also watched recently a documentary called "Beautiful Minds", the first episode being about Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, an astrophysicist... and as an example of how something like these "not related to the paranormal" shows indeed enhance the thinking of those interested, here's a quote from Professor Bell Burnell from the program in question...

Science is a quest for understanding. A search for truth seems to me to be full of pitfalls. We all have different understandings of what 'truth' is and we are in danger of each believing that our truth is the one and only absolute truth... which is why I say it's full of pitfalls. I think a search for understanding is much more serviceable to humankind and is a sufficiently ambitious goal of itself.

If anyone read the above quote and does not see the very plausible connection to studying the paranormal, I'm kind of shocked.

With the examples of "In Search Of...", "The Day The Universe Changed", and even "Beautiful Minds", (and I'm only scratching a surface,) it seems to me that STILL, someone with vision might see something rather important...

Although there is no doubt that pretty looking people with night-vision cameras lodged in shots directly up their nose appeals to some, are they not missing another demographic?

That demographic being those who genuinely want to know more about these experiences... to learn about the phenomena... to actually hear things that, perhaps, they didn't know before?

Looking at the ratings (which I oddly enough do,) from BBM (in Canada) and Nielsen (in America) I do see the sincere waning of interest the fare placed before the viewing public... and yet, the interest IS there.

Most real paranormal investigators know that if you truly did follow us about on our work, it would hardly be compelling... I've often likened it to how I heard the job of airline pilot described... Hours and hours of endless tedium and boredom broken by seconds of excitement. Let's face it, following someone around for three hours in an old building while they check temperatures, snap photos, and take other readings is not exactly wah-hoo stuff... and even the rather obviously scripted and directed (to make it "...more interesting for you, the viewer!") reality shows can only do so much...

...but what about really TRYING to push the actual subject ahead of the experience or reaction?

I bet some of you didn't know this, but it's true... My experience has taught me that people are interested in the paranormal itself, not just the reaction of talent-challenged demi-actors under cheap direction.

There are a lot of people that want information... they want ideas... they want knowledge... ESPECIALLY about something that could be about the idea of what comes after one passes on. (Most of us, sadly, will die at some point in the future... and the idea of what might come after that moment interests some... and that's only ONE possible aspect of ghosts!)

Now, Sue and I have never hid the fact... we're not interested in being media stars. We actively avoid a lot of media... but to those people out there who are happy to deal with the media... consider this...

There is a lot of really good information out there... and it could be presented in an entertaining and educational format... and faux reality teevee is not that medium.

Perhaps you might suggest... Hey! The night-vision up my nose is great, but why not consider presenting the information in an educational way and make it entertaining and interesting! Maybe watch a good documentary or three and use those ideas and formats on this topic! We could find a NEW audience and the old audience will most likely hang about too!

It's a thought... but a good one...

...and yes, television CAN do good things with paranormal subjects... but not until they get off the merry-go-round of stupid false reality shows and think outside the "paranormal media" box.

I think, one day, they will.

Note: If you don't read the following with the knowledge that it's somewhat of a parody and tinged with more than a little bit of truth combined with snark and humour, you will be missing the point. (The mere fact that I need to include this prelude is rather telling about some of the people discussed below... but experience has taught me that this is a necessary evil.)

In the field of discussions of paranormal topics it's can be important if not vital to know the fauna that may be encountered while navigating the internet and other areas where these creatures can be viewed "in the wild", as it were.

Although there could be volumes about the differing species one might encounter, this entry is specific to the genus Hominis Scepticus or the American variation of the species, the Hominis Skepticus or common sceptic.

The sceptic comes in many variations and cross-genera, but the basic categories remain visible and easy to detect.

This guide will allow the user to identify the common varieties of sceptic they may encounter within the discussion of the paranormal.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pseudo-Sceptic
Fraudulous Representatious

This sceptic is one of the most common varieties found in almost all corners of human habitat. Claiming to practice "scepticism", this variety is actually almost another species, the Non-Believerious Incapabolous Accepticus Hypothesisous or common non-believer that does not understand that scepticism means to doubt rather than knee-jerk deny things. They are easily spotted by their cry which is always similar and sounds like, "I don't believe any of that bunk. I'm a sceptic."

This variety uses the cloaking ability of the word "scepticism" to make themselves feel better about their absolute faith in the non-existence of things they don't wish to acknowledge a possibility of. Like many sceptics listed in this guide, they really are not a sceptic as such, but popular vernacular has forced them into the genus category.

This variation feels that science is on their "side"... when it is not... as science, as a method, is "undecided" about things without empirical evidence to substantiate a stance. Also, this variation usually can't cite any scientific studies or papers to substantiate it's point.

This variety occasionally displays a sincere sense, albeit false, of persecution over their stance and how it is viewed by others. More often than not, they are so snug within their viewpoints that really, it doesn't matter all that much what anyone thinks or discusses with them... They'd rather be somewhere else discussing other things anyway.

Evangelical Sceptic
Compulsionious Preachus

Often found in groups or as rogue (and often unwanted) individuals, this variation is closely related to the Fraudulous Representatious above, but takes more pro-active measures and works to feather it's nest by trying to rid the planet of what it considers the work of Hominis Woowooiticus.

Sadly, it often mistakes literally most (if not every) piece of writing, study, literature, and experience that does not fit it's self-built paradigm (regardless if it is truly the work of the Hominis Woowooiticus or not,) and feels compelled to shred said work or loudly disavow it usually in a public forum.

This species is often incapable of looking at any data or even entertaining an alternative hypothesis that may allow for differing ideas to what it feels is 'acceptable' or even allowing the concept of hypothesis or speculation within any field that might distress it's own safe view of it's habitat. (Closely related to Non-Believerious Incapabolous Accepticus Hypothesisous, but more likely to attack without legitimate provocation and usually without full argument as to why the attack is taking place.)

When confronted by uncomfortable things, the Compulsionious Preachus will most often secrete it's foul cry of "WOO!" accompanied by a finger point, and then it will change the subject to allow for easier mockery of any subject it feels is "questionable", regardless of relation to the original points it took offence to.

Active within the general community it inhabits, Compulsionious Preachus feels it's life's work is to "assist" all other hominid life away from what it considers dangerous matter.

This vitriolic variation of sceptic is often considered, even within some of scepticism's general group habitats, to be problematic at best, annoying and pointless at worst.

This variation feels that science is on their "side"... when it is not... as science, as a method, is "undecided" about things without empirical evidence to substantiate a stance (including a negative one) and because of this, true science allows for speculation and hypothesis where this version of sceptic will not and really, can not.

This variety often displays a sincere sense, albeit false, of persecution over their stance and how they are viewed by others which they feel justifies their behaviour and actions. (Realistically, people don't like them because of their zealotry in general, but this truism is dismissed by the Preachus as they are so so certain of their own paths or action. "Exitus acta probat" is effectively their mantra.)

Fake Sceptics
Scepticus Falsus Woowoous

This variation is often located within the field of the paranormal studies (of a sort) and often displays the word "sceptic" to describe itself, but then does something to ensure that the keen observer understands that it is not actually a pure bred sceptic.

For example, there are things that are self-named "Sceptical Demonologists", which in itself proves that the "sceptic" part in this group is probably not apt as they have already pre-determined the cause for what they're looking into... again, removing doubt or questioning which, again, doesn't truly make them appropriate for the genus "sceptic", but they are still self-labeled thusly.

This variation feels that science is on their "side" because they occasionally utilise "scientific" equipment... again, "science" is not on their side as using scientific equipment without proper controls or even a truly complete understanding of the measurements taken (and why they are being taken) makes one a "scientist" much the same way as using a cranial saw to slice cheese for a sandwich makes one a neurosurgeon.

This variety often displays a sincere sense, albeit false, of persecution over their stance and how they are viewed by others.

Angry Sceptics
Furious Scepticus

This variety of sceptic is often related to the Compulsionious Preachus above, but unlike Preachus, it's usual form of attack is not tangible articles, but debates and usually devolves to online "internet trolling" (see the Urban Dictionary for definition of "Internet Troll" for more information,) of anyone it feels is "opposed" or even humouing an opposing view of things than it holds to be true.

This variation feels that science is on their "side" and they are "fighting the good fight" without actual action or even data to prop up their case... they are, of course, wrong as science requires empirical data, not simply being the "loudest voice" to be accepted as fact.

This variety often displays a sincere sense, albeit false, of persecution over their stance and how they are viewed by others which they feel justifies their behaviour.

Fan Sceptics
Lustivus Scientisticus Scepticus

Like many other species that is of the Lustivus variation, (such as the Apple Fanboius, the Beiber Feverous, and the ever present Astra Trekkieus,) this variation of sceptic latches on to a favourite aspect of their adoration and flogs it almost completely to death much to the irritation of others.

In Lustivus Scientisticus Scepticus, this often is a quote from a scientist or noted intellectual and is little more than a sound byte which completely defines their stance.

Usually, the Lustivus Scientisticus Scepticus doesn't understand the quote completely or is unaware of the origins.

The two most common that are bandied about as the call of the Lustivus Scientisticus Scepticus are "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" which is cited as coming from the late Dr. Carl Sagan. Sagan did not coin the term, the late Dr. Marcello Truzzi did, and when Truzzi noted that scepticism had been taken over by non-believers rather than doubters, he left the sceptical organisation he helped found... and also, on noting that evidence is evidence and/or truth is truth and things either can be or "not be", he changed his stance and wished he'd simply said, "Claims Require Evidence"... and that meant all claims including claims of non-existence in the face or overwhelming reported experiences.

The other oft used phrase is "The Simplest Answer is Usually the Correct One" or "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" to be correct. This is Occam's Razor... which was "coined" by William of Ockham, a 14th century monk who did utilise this logic more than a few times to say that simply "God Made It So" (the simplest answer) to "answer" things that seemed (at the time) to defy simplistic observational (scientific) answers.

With these examples known, this variation of sceptic often worships these words and their (often incorrectly attributed) original creators and all "arguments" end up with these words being parroted back to the opposing number... usually to the point of extreme redundancy.

This variety assumes "science" is on their side because they cite "scientists" so it must be right.

This variety does not usually display a sincere sense of persecution... only misplaced smugness in support of their own 'intelligence'.

(See also: Fallback Position to Randi's Million-Dollar "Challenge" as Proof of Non-Existence.)

Actual Sceptics
Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus

The rarest of all sceptics and within the realm of the garden variety "popular" sceptic, these are often mocked or called a "soft-sceptic", because they actually use scientific logic and thought and don't make sweeping generalisations but work from a case-by-case scenario when presented with things.

They "doubt" and do not "deny out of hand" which also makes them targets of the "harder" variations of the sceptic species. They understand that there are no true limits to our knowledge and understanding of the universe regardless of any stand one takes and that some "laws" may not apply as more information comes into play.

They demand empirical evidence before supporting any position on things, but do not dismiss ideas until evidence if brought to the fore to show an idea may or may not be correct.

Science (as a method) is on their side as indeed, they only work from the empirical and will accept possible hypothesis and even speculation provided it's presented as such.

Unlike all of the above, this variety will not resort to ad hominem attacks when presented with questionable things, but instead question the data itself.

This variety is persecuted by the above variations of sceptic and also by Hominis Woowooiticus (true believers who don't wish to have their faith questioned,) as they refuse to take any stand without, again, empirical evidence and as such, are not viewed as being "one of the faithful" by any of these camps.

They are also soundly loathed by the not-common, but oft seen Fraudulous Conmanicus Woowooator or predatory hominid that prey on Hominis Woowooiticus for money and whatnot as the findings and presentation of facts and data by Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus are far more difficult to "contradict" which the Conmanicus must do in order to entice prey continue to feed.

Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus is truly the more successful and discreet variant of Compulsionious Preachus... making the Preachus usually very jealous.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All of the above mentioned, with the exception of Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus, when presented with empirical evidence that forces them to re-think their stance on any subject they originally held near-and-dear, (say the original "sceptical" view on panspermia,) will show that they are indeed of the same genus as they resort to one of the two common wild calls of 'correction'... "Well, that was self-evident and I knew it all along. You just didn't understand me!" or "That wasn't my point..." which is a pseudo-intellectual variation of "Exitus acta probat" in a way.

Again, save the Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus, the common sceptic is never wrong and as such, must be truly "God like" in their infallibility.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I do hope this guide has been helpful... and yes, I do understand that one could do many differing guides to all sorts of types of species found in the realm of these studies, and this article is a little one-sided... but when one reads things such as...
TheSkeptoidZone - Uber-skeptoid with way too much time on his hands gets libx warning
...one might understand why I believe that it's important for all to know or be able to figure out what type of sceptic they are dealing with in the wild.

Thank you for reading...

Although I respect their bravery, I fear that doing so is going to prove bad for business for them.
- Quoted from a posting on Ghost Village's Message Board about my publishing the "Final Orb" article.

~~~~

The quote above was brought back to my attention yesterday evening... and it spurred many thoughts...

It's not been a mystery that life (fiscally) for Sue and myself has been hard... and we are most certainly not alone.

Often, we think of two examples... both Ufologists... we have been privileged to know. Both men have an unbelievable body of work and excellent standing and respect within their field... and yet, one died rather recently having basically gone bankrupt and losing everything... to the point of trying to sell his library and notes just a couple of years before his passing. The other fellow is still trying to eek out any funds he can as he can... even selling off many of his personal possessions to make ends meet.

The people we know legitimately working with ghosts and hauntings also tend to be in a bad spot. Many of the "big name" ghost folks of the past came into the study as people of leisure... money wasn't an issue for them... but thousands of not-as-wealthy people who are legitimately serious about the study literally go hand-to-mouth in order to do what is their passion.

The same is true for Cryptozoologists and psychical researchers and investigators... If you didn't come to the table with funds or were hired by a wealthy patron or group, you must be prepared to starve for your passion... because, although there are ways to "make your living" in the paranormal, the majority of those vocations mean having to usually be very flexible in your ethics and morals.

"...bad for business..." the quote above said. Writing an article and truly making my point in a valid and testable way was bad for business.

What this says, and she was right, was telling the truth and being honest would mean less people would send me photos that I knew were 99.9999% natural in origin to post on my website as "Jenn-You-Whine" ghostly images... and in today's world, no pics means no flash and no sizzle... and lower hit rates... less traffic... less chance to make "business" happen with "customers" seeing our "wares".

One COULD say that this lack of "business" also means less reports and visitors who might talk to us about their experience and we could lose valuable data for our work... but honestly, other than a few bumps when I initially published that paper, we've grown... and reports have increased year over year...

...but it's that word... "business"... Are we a business? We aren't making a dime on this... and to be truthful, we know we probably never will... but obviously, it would be grand to do what we have a genuine thirst and passion for as a "living".

How could someone like us make business?

Well, we could write books... Not as profitable as one might think and we'd be in an over-glutted market... plus Sue and I have discussed it and if we did write something, we'd want it to offer you, a reader, something really new... and honestly, so far, the best stuff we have is right here... free... and we're cool with that.

Okay, no book... yet... and none on the immediate horizon.

There are "ghost tours" and the like... and we actually see a LOT of value in these. They're fun, entertaining, and often educational. Really, a good "ghost tour" is often great value for the money... but there are many really excellent tours in our neck of the woods... and we never set out to be a tour operator and very happily promote the ones that are out there. Also, we would never set up a long-term operation that might run competitively against those that have been around a long while...

So, no tours.

There are classes, lectures, and the like... but these have a limited appeal and shelf-life with the masses. Doing this might leak in a coin or two to the coffers... we did even try this once or twice... but overall, sadly, in order to look after our daughters and ourselves, the "day jobs" must be first and foremost in the financial gathering department... that, and we really don't have the space or facilities to use either... Top that off with the fact that we would not and could not "fib" about what these would entail... and not having "extreme videos", "amazing pictures", or other "proof" of the existence of the paranormal is not a crowd-grabber... even when you do report to have these, people get bored unless they're new ones available every time they come out... and although we work this way anyway, many people (especially "down South",) are not terribly interested in having their evidence scrutinized by any recognised authorities like a university, professional photographers, or audio engineers.

So, no regular full-time gigs doing lectures or classes.

The three ideas above would really be the only ways we could "Self-Start" a business of sorts using our field of study... and we'd be okay with them... but have had to discount them for ourselves.

Of course, there would be "Find a Wealthy Patron" who'd pay us to continue our work... or be hired by a school to become full-time paranormal researchers and investigators... but those are pipe-dreams.

Then, there's the more common routes people DO try to make coins from this... and they are most certainly not for us...

#1: Charge for work or investigations. Why? How would you justify this fee? Also, the information gathered helps us find answers and leads to a greater understanding of the paranormal in general... the thought of putting one's hand out and saying, "Money or no work!" for this study is just horrible to us. Also, in terms of charging for "house clearing" or the like... again, our own honesty would be our undoing. First, most house clearings don't work. Second, how can anyone give any sort of guarantee that they've successfully removed something that no one has absolutely proven to exist AND even if you have a belief or faith in the existence of these things (and honestly, we do believe these things are experienced ourselves,) how do you quantify their existence so you can measure that they are gone when absolute no one before you has?

...so that ain't happening with us.

#2: Hope for a media gig. Fantastic... except... I have daughters... and need every penny I have... Would I be guaranteed a paycheque for "X" amount of years to ensure their needs are met? What if this lasted only one year or less? Would I be out on my bum and jobless? We've worked with media before... and one large multinational company told us Do things our way or we don't work together... we didn't work together... and my fabled story about being asked to dance to the "Ghostbusters Theme" for a camera? It happened... it was a major news organisation in the city I live in. Basically, our overwhelming experience with media has been they're more than willing to not guarantee any pay, ask you to tank your ethics and principals for their "version" of how things should be, and after all is said and done, you usually lose the respect of authorities and people who can help the study... but you MIGHT gain a "TeeVee" fan base... which in the long run, is counter to what we would like to achieve. We need the universities, museums, and historic sites... and we've seen how the quest for fame by some ruin those contacts and people not only for themselves, but others. Most importantly, Sue and I have never claimed to be entertainers and are not actors or the like in either an amateur or professional sense.

...so that ain't happening in the near future either.

#3: Try to sell "stuff". Again, in a glutted "ghost hunter store" market, this isn't a winner in many respects... and the competition from what we've seen is brutal. Worse yet, many of the gadgets at these stores are available, often much cheaper, in legitimate science shops... they just don't have a "ghost sticker" on them or claim to capture UFO's in flight 80% of the time. Some things have a proven negative track record in terms of finding evidence of the paranormal, and yet are still peddled as "real" investigative equipment... Some people have even taken items that are free or could be built cheaply and marketed them as their own creation with a huge price mark-up. Again, we just can't do that... This is counter to what we want to accomplish and in some cases, even criminal.

...no go on that.

I could continue... there are other ways to make coin... many of them in the "unscrupulous" category.

Perhaps I should add something... to be clearer... for those new to Sue and I and our groups, and that is lay out what *is* driving us in our efforts...

Sue and I have had our own experiences. We have also heard far too many other people with similar and different experiences. We are both people who want to understand those experiences. We believe the understanding of these things benefits everyone. We think of ourselves as investigators, researchers, thinkers, and educators. We are pleased that we are not alone in these thoughts.

So, seeing that above, you can see how we really will never be able to properly set aside our ethics or morals... and that, indeed, this is a passion... an obsession... and we know it will be a money-losing proposition.

I recently updated the "PSICAN Help Us" page which lays out what we do with any gifts people toss our way... and what we'd do with larger gifts... and the ultimate dream of a PSICAN learning centre...

...but will some of the larger goals be a reality?

Perhaps.

...are we willing to do what best for "business"?

Y'know what?

No.

We won't.

What you see is what you get... and we won't sell out our vision, our ideals, or our ethics for anything.

We're like you.

...and as such, we cannot and will not bend our ways or possibly corrupt our vision just for money's sake.

If the funds come, they come.

If they don't, oh well... it's been a great experience and learning adventure...

...and maybe we will never own our dream home or make our other wishes come true... but we'll build a decent life for our family, we will continue as we can, and we really - in the long run - will have few regrets.

"Business" may be bad... but our self worth is quite amazing... and that's the important thing in the long run.

Of course, if that wealthy patron is out there, we WOULD love that learning centre and think other's would love it too!

There's a dreadful little website that takes things way too far by the same name as this blog entry...

It has topics like "What's the harm in believing in psychics?" and then goes on to list major news stories about victims of fraudulent psychics and the like... Now, I say the site in question is "dreadful" because in making it's point, it often makes some leaps and tries to connect dots... for example, "Belief in Ghosts" is apparently tantamount to wishing for an exorcism and so the site lists a lot of rather horrible bad exorcism stories...

Now, this is valid information and I agree there should be caveats to folks who wish to dive into any belief (especially if they wish to act on it,) to do some homework... but that's not why I'm writing this post.

My point is the other "What's the harm?" things... things I've either heard people ask about or must assume people ask about... because indeed these things happen, and one has to assume the people that acted on them felt there'd be no harm... and yet...

For example...

~~~~

What's the harm in fibbing a little to make a ghost story more interesting?

I mean, after all, it might even put a few coins in the "fibber's" wallet and entertain the kids, right?

Well, I did cover some aspects off in this blog post a few days back... about how lying once taints everything the "fibbers" then produce no matter how valid it might be... and how their "fibs" then cast everyone in a bad light because, indeed, we all do get painted with the same brush by the masses (one "ghost hunter" is another "ghost investigator" is another "paranormal researcher" with no big differences between them all to most people...) and that ends up hurting us all...

...but what about the ethics of that "fib"?

Historical inaccuracies is one thing (and usually the most common event when "ghost hunters" fib,) but what happens when their new tales of haunts (and usually the darker aspects of a history that lead to the "haunting",) contain problems for those who are a little more attached to things then the story tellers is? What if it stigmatizes a home, a parcel of land, or worse yet, a family's good name? We've even had complaints (I know, like we're a complaints department!!! ...but such is life...) when ghost stories told by guides take a decidedly nastier and historically inaccurate tone in terms of the people (post mortem,) supposedly involved... with everything from racism, sexism, implied murders, backroom abortions, and various other treacherous acts all desperately chucked into a "good ghost story" to thrill and chill... with zero proof, zero evidence, and zero substance. Such acts of modern folklore have closed off more than twenty sites to us (even though we were not involved with the "new" stories,) and other ghost enthusiasts... just so a handful could have a sexy story to light up their cold lives.

...and what was the harm?

Ask us... who are now shut out of possibly valuable investigative research.

Ask the families involved... who now live with the stigma of lies about their ancestors.

Ask anyone with a sense of decency... who has to hear someone mock their ancestry... or lifestyle...

...just because someone needed a "good story".

Not just "ghost hunters" can be blamed for this, however... look how deftly things of this nature are handled by the mainstream media by reading this old post.

~~~~

What's the harm in watching a lot of reality paranormal television programs?

Nothing... provided you understand that a good 75% (or more) of what you're seeing is not all that real.

No, I don't mean they're "faking stuff" that's ghostly or demonic and offering it to you, the viewing audience, as absolute evidence of weird stuff...

...not only that...

They're faking most conversations, story lines, and a lot more in most cases.

The minute you see a creative person in the credits... or a "story editor"... or anything involving a script, it stopped being "real".

There is no "best time" to see or experience things, as an example. Paranormal events happen night or day... it's just hard to freak out teenagers on a couch with a bowl of popcorn in front of their big screen with a show shot at noon.

More and more, the truth seems to be there's not much truth in any of these programs... They are entertainment... and the people in them are entertainers... and provided you understand that... and you know that the majority of what they're doing and saying is really for your viewing benefit to make the popcorn extra-tasty, there's no harm at all.

...but you should be aware of how some of them truly see you... like this interview points out from a writer hired by The Warren's to work on a book for them...

I found that the accounts of the individual Snedekers didn’t quite mesh. They just couldn’t keep their stories straight. I went to Ed with this problem. "Oh, they’re crazy," he said. "Everybody who comes to us is crazy. Otherwise why would they come to us? You’ve got some of the story – just use what works and make the rest up. And make it scary. You write scary books, right? That’s why we hired you. So just make it up and make it scary."

Lorraine Warren is a staple on one of the "reality" TV shows... and there's more about these folks... a LOT more...

...and, off the record, one person involved with the show Mrs. Warren is on admitted to us that, indeed, they don't buy into the "demon" thing... and they want to return to working on strictly ghosts sans "demons". (Good luck with that... I'm sure it'll happen when it's time to renew contracts.)

Again, if you realise that these programs are borderline absolute fiction and ONLY for your "scary pleasure", enjoy!

...but it ain't really what happens when those of us who are in the field do our work.

What is the harm then?

Try working (key word that... "working"...) with anyone who has seen these shows and expects the same "results" and happenings. It's often not pretty.

Also, the antics of the teevee paracelebrities are often so embarrassing, it also closes doors for us to places that don't want that sort of thing in, on, or near their site. This sounds like hyperbole... but sadly, experience has taught us it isn't.

The only good thing here is that in Canada, the ratings for "paranormal television programs" have slipped rather hard in the last few months... and continue to lose ground. Hopefully, most of the shows will be off the air soon... and the misconceptions will eventually leave with them.

~~~~

What's the harm in hanging out and goofin' around in the haunted places?

Lessee... does the person in question have permission to be there? Might they be arrested for trespassing or break-and-enter?

...and if they are, what's the harm there, right? It's ONLY them!

...nope...

Again, in this case, one person's thrill seeking criminal is all about ghosts... and therefore is one person's "ghost hunter" is one person's "ghost investigator" is one person's...

...are you starting to see a trend?

It really is like this... and can take weeks, months, sometimes years... sometimes never... to regain the trust of an owner, tenant, site manager, or the like to allow someone to do some actual investigation and observation on a site when these things happen.

For some recent examples, see ParaResearcher's report on #1 Spadina Cres. in Toronto and more recently, the sad events relayed on The Haunted Hamilton website about the legend of Mary Rutherford.

There are many, many, sadly many more similar news items... all sad... and all stupid...

I could also list the people that mistake "abandoned" for "haunted" and end up doing poorly planned urban exploration and getting hurt and worse... but hopefully, you get the idea...

~~~~

I could go one with one's like "What's the harm of paying for psychical help?" and talking about the SEVERAL cases where we know people that lost literally thousands to would-be psychics and the like in fees and such... or "What's the harm in knowing (without any other examination,) what's happening and acting on it?" and discuss the deaths of hundreds of people in relatively modern times who were mentally ill, but "cured" (to death) by botched "exorcisms" or worse...

...but I'll stop here.

Suffice to say, when doing anything... LITERALLY anything... ask the question...

"What IS the worst that can happen?"

...and be honest with your answers.

It may save everyone, including yourself, a lot of heart ache and pain.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
- Aldous Huxley

A couple of days ago, I wrote my usual long-winded rant/comment here about mission statements and trying to figure out what people are up to in terms of the paranormal. Buried in that same post was some information regarding "proof" versus "empirical fact"... (If you need reminding, the link to said post is here.)

Upon reading this, someone asked about taking stands on things like orb photos and the like... and how, in the absence of "negative" empirical evidence to show that ALL orb photos are NOT ghosts, our group has taken a negative stance towards these as possible evidence of the paranormal. (See this link.)

Actually, we don't take on an absolute negative view on these things... but we have adopted a two-step approach to them.

#1: We do have a list of "requirements" to prove to us that orbs are truly anomalous and not particles near the camera lens which is laid out here and here.

#2: We recognise that the greater probability is that these things (orb photos) are natural (or man-made) in nature and not supernatural or paranormal in origin. (Again, see this page for details.)

I'm sure, by now, you know when I italicise a word or phrase, there's more to it and I'll explain it... and lo and behold...

How does one determine the greater probability of something?

Well, in empirical evidence, you're looking for repeating or repeated events which can be measured... from there, you can work out an observational conclusion... but in order to be absolutely empirical, it must be able to be recorded and repeated by as many neutral observers as possible and corroborated as a correct finding.

Sometimes, that last bit can be tricky...

Let's take "The Amityville Horror" as an example.

A family and some demonologists said the house was haunted. This, in itself, would be enough to at least entertain the notion that this was, at least, a "reportable" case... Not empirical by a long shot, but no reason to suspect that there's anything to be wary of within the situation... no reason (on the prima facia) to suspect any jiggery-pokery is happening...

...but then we look at the other evidence.

A: A paranormal investigator who's credentials are reasonably air-tight examined the case before the demonologists and voiced concerns of a hoax at play. (See this link about that...)

Okay, there's room for a little doubt...

B: The lawyer for the man who committed the murders in the house admitted he concocted the stories with the people that were depicted in the book and movie over many bottles of wine.

A confession? Okay, now there's a lot of room for doubt...

C: There are over one-hundred documented factual errors within the book and movie, "The Amityville Horror", as noted by one researcher.

Okay, the weight of evidence is swinging madly to one side... but perhaps something else was going on and it was misconstrued or misunderstood...

D: No one who has subsequently lived in the house has complained about any "hauntings" or ghosts. (...although they have complained about thrill seekers and the curious coming around to visit...)

Okay, but that could mean that whatever's happening there is dormant... or perhaps it was centred around a living medium... or...

E: The demonologists involved have had more than their share of questionable situations with their versions of things and have, in one case, been cited as asking a writer to make things up because people that believe them are "crazy" and wouldn't know the difference. (See this link for details...)

Okay, this is getting worse and worse... The link above combined with the points found here and you have to start scratching your head hard...

F: At one point, the couple who are featured in the book and movie recanted large parts "their" story... only the husband sort-of back-peddled on his recantations towards the end of his life (claiming the movie and book were mostly true,) and that was just prior to trying to go on a tour to promote his experiences... His former wife (and partner at the time of "the horror",) did not recant her parts (although she did say "some" things happened to her at the home, just not what made it to the movie and book,) and his stepson (who was also part of "the horror",) has also not backed down from what he considers to be effective lies about the events.

So, we have...

Seven fairly substantial pieces of evidence to suggest that the "horror" was nothing like we were led to believe... and that those that defend the events seem to have more than a bit of a shady history...

Vs.

Really, one family and some demonologists "reports"... that were made into a sketchy book and a sketchy movie.

...and, as I've publicly stated before, if one is caught hoaxing or lying once, it's unlikely that anyone of substance would believe them without empirical evidence in the favour of what they're trying to show as "fact".

So, when examining the details, we can say that the greater probability is that The Amityville Horror seems to be fictitious... in the extreme.

Still, can I say for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN it's all nonsense? No... but that's the difference between "proof" (as there's enough about to cast serious doubt in this case,) versus empirical evidence.

Now, if the remaining demonologist claims (later on) it was all lies, and a diary is found from the husband involved saying it was all lies, then the physical burden of proof would be met... to make it pretty much empirical.

(For more info on Amityville, have a boo at Troy Taylor's article...)

Are ALL orb photos airborne particles illuminated near the lens? Most likely... Is it an absolute certainty? No, not really... but it's the higher probability.

Was The Amityville Horror a hoax? Probably... the evidence does seem to point that way... Do we have absolute proof? Only that SOME of it is... but the rest of the evidence and the stuff that has been refuted casts enough doubt to say indeed, the higher probability is it was a hoax.

Before anyone out there says, "But AHA! You're basing a conclusion on a probability, not on a hard fact!", first of all, we're not making a "conclusion", only a likely scenario... and even then, on a case-by-case basis (everything deserves looking into!)... and also, allow me to offer this observation... as a trained and award-winning marksman...

If I gave you a "Saturday Night Special" handgun... say a .22 or .25 calibre pistol... and a box of 1,000 rounds of ammunition. There will be some duds in that box, most likely. In fact, there's a high probability that there is at least one dud...

...but the higher probability is that any bullet you put into the chamber of the weapon will work fine.

If I asked you to load the weapon, place the barrel to your temple and squeeze the trigger, would you do it?

Realistically, the bullet in the gun will work fine.

...it's only a probability though...

Willing to chance it?

Now, this example is hyperbole in the extreme... and as stated above, all claims require not only evidence, but also examination... but let's work it this way...

If you read all the evidence above about The Amityville hauntings... and the people involved who promoted it as "real"... would you trust them 100%?

75%?

40%?

...less...?

If your reputation was carried on being truthful and honest, and you worked diligently to ensure that you were as accurate as possible and as honest as possible, what would you say then?

Cutting to the chase, if you're left with no empirical evidence and an inability to acquire any, then realistically, you need to fall back on the greater probability and acknowledge that anything else is only a possibility... but if the evidence (on a case by case basis) swerves strongly to that "great probability", chances are it's correct and worth holding as the preferred answer... and should someone wish to push an alternate possibility to the fore because they feel or need to ensure their answer is right, then let them know...

...if they wish to combat the greater probability with a lesser possibility, then there is one way to ensure that it's completely accepted...

...and that's to bring empirical evidence to show that they're correct!

...and if they are so right, that should be easy!

"When you are through with it, What do you do with it?
All you have left is the stick."
When You Come To The End Of Your Lollipop - Max Bygraves

This one's more for the "ghost hunters" out there than anyone else, but it could transcend various studies into the paranormal...

I've talked before about people figuring out why and what they are looking for when they say they are investigating ghosts and hauntings... and many people wrote to me to tell me that they are looking for "proof" of the phenomena.

That's a relatively simple goal... and quite possibly not necessary. Why? Well, does anyone out there doubt that the vast majority of people who report to have witnessed, heard, or felt these things didn't have the experience? Does anyone think that every witness is a liar or utterly delusional save those of you who are hard-core non-believers? Even then, can hard-core non-believers state, without hesitation, that the people who feel they've run into these things didn't have a genuine experience of some sort?

The truth of the matter is, these things *are* experienced. This is something that is a statement of fact.

The question is, how physical are these events?

So, let's modify what many "ghost hunters" might be after... "Physical Evidence of Physical Activity that explains or might explain Ghostly Experiences".

They want "proof".

Okay, quick sideline here...

The question, "What constitutes proof?" comes up quite often... and that question is completely subjective.

"Proof" is what's acceptable evidence to an individual or group. Not too long ago in our history, a person remembering when a bad drought happened and who was an acting wet-nurse looking after babies while a person should have been being born was often enough in legal terms to decide a person's age. As another example, the Sun seems to come up in the East and down in the West "proving" (without question) that it obviously was circling the Earth. One last example would be to consider legal matters again... Back "in the day", how many people went to their deaths because neighbours believed they were guilty of this or that crime? Even within ancient academia, "proof" seemed volatile... just look into the ongoing history of the discovery and examination of neutrino particles if you need something far more current...

"Proof" is one thing... "Empirical Evidence" is quite different.

"Proof" can be simply the say-so of an accepted authority... "Empirical Evidence" must be... well... empirical... meaning the following...

The data is observable by neutral parties, repeatable or repeated, predictable (as possible), and measurable when it occurs.

So, to continue with examples, the statement "Rocks are hard" is offered as proof...

...but it's pretty incorrect.

Talc is a rock, and it's not too hard... but compared to diamonds which are also rock?

Ergo: With repeated experiments, we can say, with some level of acceptance, that diamonds are a hard substance by most standards... and that's empirical... and can/has been borne out by repeated observation and indeed, experimentation, from many sources.

So, bringing us back to our topic at hand, being looking for "proof" of ghosts, perhaps we should say that good ghost hunters are...

Looking for Empirical Evidence of the Physical
Existence of things considered to be Ghosts.

That's a reasonable mission statement for many "ghost hunters"... and it would be nice if all "ghost hunters", investigators, and/or researchers really sat down and created a true mission statement for what they're trying to accomplish. (Hence the title of this blog post.)

Now, here's my real question...

*If* many of the "ghost hunters" who've written to me found something that appeared to stand up to empirical scrutiny in terms of evidence of ghostly phenomena, what would they do with that?

Think about it.

You've managed to (metaphorically, of course,) trap your ghost in a jar.

Now what?

Show it off?

Why? To what end? Who are they trying to "impress" if they are even trying to "impress" anyone?

Perhaps sell it to the highest bidder... make it a commodity...

I'd like to think that wasn't the case and that most people in this field are relatively altruistic, but common sense tells me that at least 35% to 45% of the people I've seen reporting to be "ghost hunters" (or investigators or researchers) are not in the field for purely altruistic reasons... call me cynical due to some rather bad experiences and indeed, observations.

Shortly before writing this piece, a news item hit that I'm shocked didn't send absolute waves of excitement through the paranormal investigative and research "community"... The Society for Psychical Research, one of the oldest and absolutely one of the most respected legitimate organisations looking into these things, sent out a news release about Dr. Barrie Colvin's work with recordings of "poltergeist rappings"... (you can read the article here. ) Dr. Colvin found a unique and not-quite understood sound-wave signature with the recordings or knockings and rappings which seem to suggest that these sounds can not be caused by "normal means". Effectively, if you compare the structure of the sound of "normal" rappings and "poltergeist rappings", there's distinct and measurable differences.

Empirical evidence of "poltergeist raps" not being made through natural (or man made) sources? Perhaps...

Empirical evidence of the existence of ghosts? Nope.

Still, to not see the major importance of this study would be a little silly... and remember, using the guidelines for what's empirical you are looking for patterns... and he may have found one that as of now, might defy explanation.

Did Dr. Colvin head to JREF (James Randi's "sceptical" group) to collect the million dollar prize? Of course not... First of all, it's not empirical evidence of the paranormal, only a clue and possible pattern to help maybe solve a bigger puzzle.

Did he race to The National Enquirer to claim it's prize for proof of "Life After Death"? No...

Is he now seeking a television show to "showcase" his talents? Nope.

He published his findings in a respected journal with an accredited group where it can be used to further exploration and hopefully education into these things.

He does/will receive some "fame" (more credit, to be honest,) for doing some ground-breaking work and publishing... but beyond that, he's an actual investigator... a scientist... and he's putting out his work for critical examination... and presented his data.

In terms of "ghosts", one could note that Dr. Colvin's work doesn't make any strides towards figuring out if any of the popular hypothesis of causation of the phenomena are "the answer" to these events... I mean, are poltergeist knocks part of the DPH (Dead Person Hypothesis? - Thanks to Eric Oullett for this acronym...) Are these manifestations RSPK (Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis?) Are they Psi phenomena requiring a medium (anomalous energy transfers?)

...or something completely different?

Perhaps he hasn't "solved" any of the puzzles in terms of what is or isn't a ghost or poltergeists, but his work may be a key component for the next group or person coming along... I know we'll be pouring over his published (complete) notes the minute we can.

Granted, I could now go into a rant about some of the morons "in the field" that complain reading and studying other people's work and efforts, especially from long ago, is a wasted effort as "They didn't find anything, so why should we care?"... and then the said same morons start re-doing the work done years previously blissfully unaware that they are indeed simply re-tracing old steps that people have already done and often with nothing more than new mistakes and spewing out baseless conjecture... but I shan't bother you with that...

Er-hmm...

Anyway...

So, looking at the work above... and the mission statement... I really only have three questions for everyone who reports to be a "ghost hunter", ghost investigator, or ghost researcher...

First: What is your mission statement and why?

Second: What methods are you using? Would they result in empirical findings? Would your evidence stand up to full scrutiny?

Third: If you did accomplish your mission, what would you do with your work?

These questions aren't as simple as they'd seem.

...and to be fair, here's my answers...

First: PSICAN's mission is to look for and document cases of paranormal experiences from a historic, psychological, and scientific view with an eye to finding out possible causations to these events or presenting various hypothesis of causation for examination by all.

Second: Our methods are tailored on a case-by-case basis depending on the phenomena reported. We do work to find the best possible way to keep data empirical, but are always working to perfect our methods and do tap as many accredited specialists in various fields as possible towards that end.

Third: We are and always have been an educational resource that keeps all publishable information free for viewing on our websites (and perhaps in the future, in a facility with public access,) in the hopes they will further the understanding of those experiences that we currently dub "paranormal" in nature.

These three answers shouldn't be for everyone... and it's fine if they're not. This is "us"... Sue's and my vision... it may be your's too... it may not be.

...but still, if you're a "hunter", investigator, or researcher... ask yourself those three questions... and see what you come up with.

There's no harm if it is a little more "fame and fortune" based... or even more "thrilling stuff" based... but still, it's an interesting exercise for everyone... if nothing else, to define what you want from this study.

We love to hear your personal experiences with ghosts, and hauntings in the province of Ontario so please do keep sending them in. Your privacy will be protected, and witness comfort is our primary concern.

You may email us directly at submissions AT torontoghosts.org or submissions AT ontarioghosts.org


Bovaird House Brampton - New

The Gladstone Hotel - New

If You're Serious You Can Never Hoax - New Editorial

Fort George Niagara On The Lake - Updated

John Graves Simcoe and Raynham Hall - New

Enjoy!

In a recent article I wrote, I mentioned how talking to people about possibly considering an alternative hypothesis to their own belief in what causes the things we consider paranormal is much more difficult than discussing alternative views on their chosen leanings in politics. Lately, I've been under fire (again) for not toeing a line in one way or another with some folks who can be, for lack of a better term, vitriolic in their correspondence and very much warriors of what has to be termed their faith.

"Faith" is a multi-meaning word for me as it not only encompasses the obvious spiritual possibilities within philosophies or religious views, but also "faith" in what some people understand to be the absolute answers to what is normally considered the unknown... and also, "faith" within fandom of certain people and even philosophies.

Effectively, you can have "faith" in a deity, but you can also have "faith" in the quality of a brand name cola... or "faith" that you will not slip on the stairs leading to the sidewalk outside your home... or "faith" that what you've read, seen on TV, or heard on the radio is 100% accurate and absolute.

Religiously, I've never hidden that I'm agnostic. I do have personal and indeed speculative concepts of religion... and/or spirituality... and/or even possible life after death... but they're open to evidence and I'm quite content to assume I'm wrong and would not be heart broken if I was proven to be incorrect. That said, I do actually have tremendous respect for those that find strength in their religious beliefs that find their faith aids them through life... and am a bit saddened that my inability to subscribe to any version of dogmatic beliefs might actually be a hindrance to my psychology as I am not comfortable with pat answers or other people dictating to me what I should believe based on their own (or even a popular) faith. In essence, I lack that strength that absolute faith brings because my mind demands more... and although I can entertain ideas, without empirical evidence one way or another, I cannot adopt a belief based on any other people's "say so" alone.

It's freeing in one sense though... as it does allow me to hear other people's testimony and not write it off as nonsense as many people can... because, again, I do believe the experiences to that person are legitimate... it's just personally, I will always require that little extra... yeah, I'm one of those people that can see a "Wet Paint" sign and STILL have to touch the surface to "make sure".

This viewpoint in religion and spirituality also haunts me in terms of the paranormal... and that is where those vitriolic people don't like me.

Are ghosts the spirits of the dead? Do demons exist? Are UFOs from alien worlds? Can psychics tap into another realm?

My answer to all of these is "possibly"... and "maybe not".

This is not popular.

The thing is, why are many people genuinely angry when someone, like me, cannot commit... and when people like me toss out other ideas and speculations for them to think about... I have to ask why are some people so uncomfortable with facing their "faith" head on with other arguments? Why can't they question to find better answers?

...and possibly most importantly, why are they not willing to make a believer... or non-believer... out of me with facts and evidence based on the things at hand?

Sadly, I do know that some people get angry when confronted by inconvenient facts about beliefs... be that in the causation of certain phenomena or even the egos involved with these studies... and that is when evidence is brought to bear, it forces them to re-think and re-consider a possible entire philosophy... and that's not only hard work (which nobody likes to do,) but it can be demoralizing. (Think in terms of hard-core Republicans in the United States that supported President Nixon and refused to believe there were any shenanigans... until "Watergate" broke... then they were literally stunned... some still are denying those incidents...)

Some folks who've e-mailed me recently don't like being questioned or seeing alternative thoughts because, quite frankly, it affects their "thunder"... well, their popularity with the masses. (Think in terms of all the ghost sites that had photos of orbs as their only data in terms of paranormal evidence... and when that all started going South...)

In these cases, however, I do have to wonder when these e-mailed complaints do roll in from other investigators in the field... because when I see they have trouble with other hypothesis... be that from myself or others... and then vehemently buck the ideas and even dismiss evidence that supports these other ideas or worse yet, adds questions to their own beliefs... I wonder... what's more important to these folks... the truth and continued expansion of knowledge on these subjects... or their own faith and indeed, sense of popularity?

As an agnostic on all fronts, for me, I don't care... The truth is what's most important... and if I'm wrong about everything in any of my speculation, that's a good thing... because it teaches me more and helps me find the answers (or even just better questions.)

Since I've brushed on religious beliefs, the only thing I cannot tolerate in terms of those with strong religious belief is when they force it on me in any way... when they preach to me to try and convert me to their side and shout down any opposition. When people cross the line from discussion to (hellfire and brimstone-style) preaching, I get genuinely grumpy... and again wonder why they feel they NEED to force me to their point and not address any of my personal concerns or worries.

Same goes for the paranormal... Why do they need to tell me how wrong I am... or how bad I am... or how awful something I've said/written/whatever is without presenting any hard evidence to show me the "error of my ways"?

Why do they need to convert me to their faith?

I'm an agnostic... and indeed, a sceptic. I doubt. I always have. I always will.

...and saying (or shouting) that I'm wrong or bad because I won't ignore the inconvenient facts or making me feel somehow stupid because I dared to question something that does not seem to have an empirical answer does not change my mind... it only makes me question you more.

This goes in all directions... If you demand I believe because something MUST be, then I ask for proof. If you demand that I say that something CANNOT be, then I ask for a better answer to those things that have been reported that fits the models at hand, not simply the argument that it "cannot be therefore it isn't" because there is room for hypothesis and even speculation without firm evidence in hand.

If there's a counter-point to your point, bring empirical proof to the table to counter that counter-point... or even admit you're only working on your own faith... and again, DON'T ask me to change my entire outlook based only on that. Be patient. Be kind.

I would demand no less of myself... and I do expect you to demand the same of me as well.

Don't preach to me... PROVE to me.

Prove to us all...

...or, if that proof is too elusive and you're looking into things like us, examine all aspects and then help find an answer... and show us that indeed, you might be willing to at least entertain a differing viewpoint if the facts come to the fore.

Just my $0.02 worth on some of the arguments I've had lately... and if you disagree, that's fine... just remember, we're probably not really in the exact same work or study... and as such, we probably are just hold differing faiths and beliefs.

Sorry - This event has been cancelled...

Not too long ago, I whined... wait, that sounds bad... I complained... no, worse... I expressed the opinion (better!) that many people who report to be investigating and/or researching ghosts and hauntings spent pretty much all their time interested in what came during or after the fact in terms of something deemed to be "ghostly", and not enough time looking into the causation of what made the event to happen.

When I wrote this, I was being rather "nuts and bolts" about the whole thing and suggested as opposed to trying to simply record "something weird" and then break into paroxysms of joy about what they "captured", many would-be ghost hunters should try to figure out what caused the thing they got to happen. What was experienced is important, but so to is what happened before the experience... What was the witness doing? What was their state of mind? What were (as many as possible) the environmental conditions like not just during, but before the event happened.

Figuring out these elements could help try to predict events... and therefore lead to possible answers as we could start actually figuring out what needs to be in place for these things to occur.

This written and posted, it led to what I should have realised was inevitable... and that is more than a handful of people started writing to me explaining what they knew needed to happen for a ghost to occur at all... not about the witnesses (which is what I meant, and I do apologise if that wasn't clear,) but a "ghost" in general.

These included such familiar things as...

#1: A violent death.

Nope. There are many "ghosts" that are attributed to people that went quietly and at a very old age.

#2: A sudden death.

Again, this doesn't stand up to historical/folkloric scrutiny... as stated before, there are many "ghosts" that are pegged as people that went after long illnesses who knew they'd be going... some, as I said before, at very ripe old ages.

#3: A death of someone with an incomplete goal.

How could we know? We even have many "ghost" reports that are attributed to people that passed away with no record of any sort (even word of mouth) of unfinished tasks... so this can't be all of them.

#4: A death. Period.

Okay... but if this was a simple rule and nothing else can be "pinned" to it, then we should be up to our eyeballs in ghosts... and we're not.

#5: A death of someone with an attachment to the place where the haunting is happening.

This is a possibility... but again, we have many people that don't seem to be loitering about places post mortem that we should, by dint of their own diaries and whatnot, expect them at.

These are all fine speculations... but they do all involve the newly named (as far as I'm aware... credit to Eric Oullet...) the DPH or "dead person hypothesis".

In essence, the DPH is that a "ghost" must somehow be the remnant of a dead person or dead people.

Of course, I did also get...

#6: Demons and/or Angels.

Okay, that's based on faith... and I can't say it's impossible... but again, this seems to be more a cultural or spiritual "fit" for things rather than a cold look at the data. Not all ghosts act demonic... Not all ghosts are angelic.

...and, of course...

#7: Some form of RSPK or PSI phenomena.

The only truly non-DPH option in some ways... but none-the-less, a "paranormal" answer to things.

The idea, for those that don't know AND in a very small nutshell is that the ghosts are manifestations from witnesses... basically, their beliefs, desires, fears, whatever literally create "something". The most tantalizing bit about this hypothesis is that there's enough cases where multiple witnesses have experienced things -and- uncorrupted witnesses (those that weren't expecting something as they'd not heard of any "ghosts" in the site where they experience it OR are simply not expecting what does happen and it matches earlier reports,) to float the notion that RSPK events can last after the initial "producer" of the effect is not there... meaning, quite literally, a ghost was "conjured" and has hung around.

If you're not really familiar with this, I really suggest reading about The Philip Phenomena or The Scole Experiments... it's a very interesting and (in some cases,) likely hypothesis.

As a quick note, I also got a handful of so-called sceptics who told me ghosts were all "fake", "frauds", "lies", "imagination", "hallucinations", and even they are all things like effects from one thing or another... like the hypnopompic and hypnogogic states... of course, these REALLY don't stand up to any sort of universal model for what's experienced, but they still cling to their stances.

Through my discussions with people that put forward the above seven notions (and even some of the pseudo-sceptics)... which, I'd remind, was still not REALLY my point in the original article... but I complain... er... digress... I posed to most of them the other hypothesis as to causation.

I can tell you now, to many people, (easily about 7 out of 10 people I discussed this with,) suggesting their political stances are possibly wrong or their religious beliefs might be slightly off goes down better then suggesting their pet hypothesis about "what a ghost is" might be missing some elements.

As an investigator and researcher, I examine all possibilities... so I am very open to the DPH... and PSI... and almost any possible answer... and until I have empirical evidence to suggest one is right or wrong, I neither adopt them as my sole hypothesis or discard them as being incorrect.

Personally, I believe one issue is that all of the above are correct... that different cases seem to suggest different things at work.

I've often said I liken the word "ghost" to the word "animal".

A mouse, a water buffalo, a grizzly bear, and a human are all animals... but one hopes most folks recognise the differences there.

That said, a poltergeist that tosses furniture in a new home, an apparition that floats around in historical garb and goes up a wall where a staircase once laid, and a passed-on relative that comes to a person's bed at night to comfort them are all labelled "ghost".

I could add a host of other things that get tossed into the mixed salad of what is called a "ghost" above... but you probably are doing that in your head so I'll save the typing.

Are all these things caused by the DPH?

Does the DPH play a part in PSI?

Does the DPH have to be a part of some things at all?

Again, let me tell you, woe be to the one who, to some people, suggest that a deceased person might not be involved with all ghost reports.

To be fair, I don't know myself... the DPH seems a very likely possibility in some cases... and in others, not so much.

So, in those cases... and even when discussing the things as a whole, why do some people battle so hard against an incident (or even all incidents) being dead-person bereft? Does it remove something from the experience? Does it make it "less" than it was because it might be a thought-form or "Tulpa" like entity? Is there a stigma attached to an event not being the disembodied spirit of someone who's passed on?

Does it make a witnesses experience "less" real or "less" factual?

I don't believe so... in fact, the idea of RSPK (recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis in long form,) is quite amazing, fascinating, and exciting when you think about it... that *WE* (the witnesses) can literally create not just a situation, but manifest something tangible to others.

Granted, this is only one part of RSPK... but it's still plays a big role in it.

So, why not examine all possibilities? Why not wonder if that "ghost" falls into the DPH? It still could... many do... but why toss out other possibilities?

After all, as investigators... as people looking for possible questions, should we corrupt our own efforts by only clinging to one hypothesis of initial causation?

Even if the idea of anything DPH or non-DPH is personally difficult for you, shouldn't we all remember what Aristotle once said?

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Oh, and if you think this ONLY goes for those somewhat opposed to the non-DPH side of things... or to those who have trouble with the DPH in general... it also goes for any sceptic... real or pseudo... because to knee-jerk denial or to lambaste something out of hand really reeks of not being what dear old Aristotle said above.

Just some food for thought.

We love to hear your personal experiences with ghosts, and hauntings in the province of Ontario so please do keep sending them in. Your privacy will be protected, and witness comfort is our primary concern.

You may email us directly at submissions AT torontoghosts.org or submissions AT ontarioghosts.org

Elora Ontario Private Business & Home Haunting - New

Thornhill Ontario Private Residence - New

Consecon Ontario Private Home - New

Peterborough Ontario Private Residence - New

Oshawa Ontario Private Residence - New

Uxbridge Ontario Private Residence - New

Elora Ontario Hauntings - New

Sorauren Avenue Toronto Private Home - New

Nash Road Oshawa - Update

Thomson Memorial Park - Update

Royal York Hotel - Update

The Museum Of Nature Ottawa - Update

Enjoy!

One Falsehood Spoils a Thousand Truths.
- Ashanti Wisdom

Allow me to start this post with a situational metaphor of sorts...

Have you ever known someone who's significant other has cheated on them... even just once? Have you known that relationship to weather that storm without some form of damage or even a complete breakup?

Why does that happen? No one's perfect, after all...

Simple.

The one partner can no longer completely trust the other... and often, the other, assuming *they* are imperfect, begin to worry about the victim of their dalliances doing what they've done.

This lack of trust destroys the relationship either partially or completely.

Now, on to how this relates to the paranormal...

In any serious study, a person can spend a lifetime learning, presenting, and working their butt off to accumulate good data and excellent arguments. They can be lauded for their work by colleagues and the public and considered top of their game.

...and they can destroy that reputation in one move. All they have to do is "fudge" the numbers, lie, or otherwise hoax.

That sounds awful, but it's 100% true... and in this study, which many people already question the validity of, it's doubly so.

When someone who's looking into the paranormal, for ANY reason, hoaxes, lies, or cheats, it not only reflects on them and the trust other people have in them, but they serve as a beacon and a model to fuel the fight against the study as a whole within the academic communities... including some historic sites and museums.

"Oh, you want to use our resources or site? Aren't you the SAME type of people that did that hoax?"

Now, some of you probably read that and went, "Well, Pshaw! Just point out you AREN'T the same people that perpetrated that hoax!"

This never works thanks to how human beings generally (key word that,) look at things.

I've often said that when I name people like Holzer, Underwood, Auerbach, Roll, Price, and Rogo, you who we hope are interested in the study might say that this is a list of different people looking into ghosts and hauntings in their individual way and are unique save their subject of choice.

Everyone else might rightly say, if we're lucky, "Those are all ghost hunters."

(Most people wouldn't know them from anyone else on the planet.)

Nope, the average person's view of people who look into the paranormal (any subject) is pretty much only what they see on TV... and so no, we're all in this together, like it or not... and the evangelical non-believers will, and do, use this ignorance of the field against us by pointing out that if the teevee paracelebs hoax, we're all tainted as probable hoaxers.

They do do this... and they do do it successfully.

Before the now dwindling realm of "reality" paracelebrities existed, those so-called sceptics (read: Ardent Non-Believers) would hit the books and cite case after case where a paranormal investigator would commit frauds and hoaxes to line their pockets or find fifteen minutes of fame... and again, use this to dismiss the entire field.

Ergo: One lie, one cheat, one hoax... and the perpetrator does and SHOULD lose all trust amongst their peers... and their act DOES reflect on us all.

If you've lied to get "camera time"... or to "sell your book"... or to attempt to become "famous"... what else would you do? How many other lies and cheats have you pulled in the past? How many in the future?

Sue and I have both been asked to lie for the media and even some businesses... and we haven't... because losing our integrity is not worth it to us no matter what the carrot that's being dangled in front of us is...

...and it irritates us to no end that others will happily damage us all so they can have their fame and fortune... all of which is very fleeting.

In their quest, they make those of us who believe in these things suffer because doors get closed... and although some of them feign caring, if they truly cared, they wouldn't have done it in the first place.

I suppose they forget that the human mouth and vocal cords are capable of making a noise that sounds like "No" when asked to do the questionable deeds.

...more likely, they are blinded by a mask of money, teevee cameras, and/or fame and only back-peddle when they realise, as many are right now, they're in trouble popularity-wise.

Realistically, they chose to be a version of Milli Vanilli because it's easier and more "popular" for a moment... and then wish they had decided to actually work and earn things properly and be a version of Quincy Jones.

Right now, we're hearing that some paracelebrities are desperately going to try and revise their initial gimmicks... because, they say, they want to get to where they really want to be, which is serious and not playing up for television.

...but those of us who see the BBM numbers wonder if it's because they're bleeding ratings and losing viewers...?

Either way, they can be as serious about things as they'd like... but they threw their lot in with hoaxers, have done very questionable things, and even though they now COULD have a thousand truths... their past will stick to them... and some of us, who've never followed them or even subscribed to their "viewpoints", will have to work to untarnish ourselves from their missteps.

Don't get me wrong here... it doesn't have to be full-blown television paracelebs... any hoaxer or fraud, no matter how wee, that becomes visible, hurts all of us.

...and that's why the Ashanti proverb above stands true and truer still for those of us serious about the study and those who, for any reason, think it's okay to hoax or commit outright fraud.

The setting is a church basement... a group of people are sitting in a semi-circle facing towards one man... me... Matthew... the light is dimmed... and I speak.

"Hi... My name is Matthew... and... and..."

A hush falls on the convened people as they wait for my admission.

"...and I don't want to believe."

Yes, I'm the exact opposite of the now-famed poster from The X Files television program.

The confession, however, is flawed... as it's not a complete confession... because I may not WISH to believe... but I do.

I am a very nuts-and-bolts kind of guy. Rather ones-and-zeros for me... I'm not a big fan of uncertainty. It is therefore with some -almost- jealousy that I watch people who so staunchly and firmly in their non-belief proclaim all paranormal experiences hogwash... because, my-oh-my, their lives are FAR easier than my own.

I do drink the so-called sceptical (read: Evangelical Non-Believers) Kool-Aid to a degree... I believe that if something defies proper scientific observation, it's validity must be questioned... I part company with them when they tell me that if something SEEMS to defy certain criteria, it must be dismissed as well.

I might not be so forgiving save two rather important things.

First of all, I realise that the lie of only "weirdos", "intellectually challenged", and/or "mentally deficient" people believe in these things... mostly because, unlike many in the evangelical non-believers camp, I've met, talked, and corresponded with people who are quite obviously not overly credulous or having issues distinguishing reality from fantasy... some of whom, quietly, are indeed firmly inside the so-called sceptical camps... and they relay their personal beliefs and experiences to me because they know I won't do what they expect from their own colleagues... and that is mock them for their thoughts or belittle their perceived experience.

Secondly, at a fairly young age, I ran into experiences of my own...

...and I would love, Love, LOVE to say, "Oh! You know what? I figured out... those WERE hallucinations!" or similarly, "Hey, upon further reflection, I've realised what I experienced was natural... and I foolishly ascribed something paranormal to it! Oh dopey me!"

Trouble is, I can't say that...

I've TRIED to say that... but the evidence (against) and models put forward to show it's all nonsense just don't stand up.

Nor do I believe those two statements above would stand true for much of what's been relayed to me.

Worse yet, since taking up the mantel of paranormal investigator and researcher as a "full time hobby" (if you will... sorry, but as I said a few posts ago, I do have a "day job"...) I've had other and different experiences... and had some rather eye-opening moments...

So I can't "not-believe".

It's a sticky wicket.

I suppose my solace is that despite the accredited educational system's well being absolutely poisoned by the organised evangelical non-believers to have them even entertain properly looking into the paranormal, (unless it's to utterly debunk it without a thought,) as they never wish to look like "woo-woos", it's amazing to me how often we do hear from teachers, professors, professional historians, and even medical personnel from all ranks who know they can come to us to discuss things or even bat about a speculative hypothesis... but of course, rare are those one's willing to set foot by putting their name to anything thanks to the fears of being thought of as "one of those people" who "believe in that bunk"...

You know, people like me... and probably you.

To be fair, I do understand why those folks choose not to "out" themselves about their beliefs as in many cases, their bread and butter comes from ensuring their status is good and that the powers that be are happy with them... and as long as there are people that scream from the rooftops about anyone entertaining the notion of things considered "paranormal" as being "woo", then they must maintain a safe distance publicly. I guess I'm fortunate... although I do work in technology... and indeed, in a lab environment... my employment is based solely on my skills as a technician, not on how the supposed "vox populi" views me.

Still, I want to have an easy answer... one that screams THAT'S THE REASON IT'S HAPPENING! and be able to rest on my faith and belief in that response... to say it isn't real because of "X" and have "X" be a great answer that DOES seem to cover everything... not just that I experienced... but from the thousands of genuine reported experiences I've heard/read about.

...but like I said, I can't.

Now, some folks reading this might say, "Who cares? I mean, so what if they don't believe! Why try to impress them?"

...because, at heart, I'm one of them too.

...save that I don't dismiss out of hand or poo-poo every case I hear or read about.

I believe that we *must* try to find better answers... because regardless of what the causation of these things is, finding out those answers will help everyone in some way.

...I also believe that if anyone thinks there is only *ONE* answer for everything... then they are the one's that are "intellectually challenged", "mentally deficient", and more appropriately, "blind".

There's a lot of weird stuff that's experienced. It's highly unlikely it's all caused by one thing.

...and yes, that "one thing" it cannot possibly be is the idea it's all bunk.

My name is Matthew... and I believe.

If that doesn't jive with your paradigm, before mocking me or anyone like me, I suggest you re-examine your stand... because if you're going to say, "It's not real because you can't prove it and for many years no one has!", I'm countering with one word...

..."yet".

"It would be better if everyone was more concerned about 'Cause' rather than 'Effect' when it comes to investigating the paranormal." - Matthew Didier

I've always been good at sound bytes.

What I meant when I wrote these words was that too many people looking into the paranormal get, for lack of a better term, rather hung up on "what" happened... rather than "why" it happened.

Since the word "investigator" is bandied about a lot in these types of studies, let's look at it like a criminal investigator in a hypothetical situation...

They walk into an apartment and see a dead body on the floor with a bullet wound to the head.

Imagine if the investigators on that crime scene simply went, "Look! A body! A bullet wound! Cool!" and that was it. They left with the cool evidence of a body with a bullet hole in it's head on the floor. End of.

This is what's happening all too often with many supposed paranormal investigators... looking only into the effect and not the cause of what happened.

Using my example again, a normal criminal investigator on that scene would want to know things like "What caused the bullet to enter the victim's body causing death? How long was the victim alive? What predicated the bullet wound?" Without this information, a criminal investigator has no case.

Now, back to the paranormal... and haunted places as an example... you have people running into places with tape recorders, getting odd sounds recorded, and then presenting them.

Um...

There's a few questions that need to be answered, wouldn't you think?

What caused the sounds? What evidence do you have to support what you believe caused the sound? What happened/was happening during the recording? What happened *before* the recording?

Basically, what caused the recording?

Simply getting something "weird" on audio, video, or any other type of media... or even a witness experience (as an investigator) and presenting it amounts to little more than reporting a bit of sensationalised news with no substance.

Most people don't question whether or not people do feel they experience things we call "paranormal"... nor do many question that there are odd things recorded and "captured" that occasionally defy easy explanation...

...what is always at question is what if the causation of the event in question?

To answer that question properly, we'd need to be able to actually (at least) have a reasonable expectation of something happening that is estimatable in it's frequency or occurrence... and we can't do that unless we figure out certain variables.

Popular fiction would have you believe UFOs are only seen on country roads late at night... preferably somewhere deserted... which is not true. How many stories about ghosts have the clock strike "thirteen" or at least midnight? One newer popular thought is there is a specific time that ghosts tend to be most active during... and one wonders, how in heck did anyone figure that out? Our files (amongst many others,) say that thinking is flawed in the extreme. Sasquatch is only in dense forest in the Pacific Northwest? No... that's not accurate...

...so we need to see what the commonalities are noticeable in these experiences.

What happens just before a paranormal experience? Is there any common thread?

Harkening back to my ghost investigators example, I doubt we'll ever find out at the rate we're going because one line of questions is rarely fully explored... and that is not only what happened DURING an event... and immediately before the event... but what was happening well before the event took place.

What was the witness doing? What made them notice something weird was happening? Did they have a reason to look towards or pay attention to the place where "whatever it was" was experienced? Did they notice any environmental changes prior to the experience? What tasks, if any, were they involved in? What was their state of mind?

If you knew these answers, you might very well be able to guesstimate when something was about to occur... and be prepared to capture that experience on tape or whatever... and know what many of the possibilities could be.

This information, which needs to be collected on a case-by-case basis, could lead to almost any possibility as to why things happen.

As an example, we're noticing a small "bump" in data that seems to say people involved in repetitive tasks relying on little or no physical activity are more prone to experience a change in environment that allows them to "see" apparitions when they report them to us. This is not a "rule", mind you... just a small, but noticeable "bump" in data.

Is this because they're almost in an altered state of conscious due to the "hypnotic" effect of what they're doing? Is it because the mind is released from certain duties allowing a more PSI formed event to occur? Is it because they're almost in a form of "dream state" and imagining things or, even possibly allowing the witness to be privy to something a "woken" person might not see?

...actually, that last one in terms of hallucinations isn't as great a catch-all answer as some would believe because of cases with multiple witnesses... one has to assume they're not all having the exact same hallucination... but still, it should be examined as a possibility.

If we noticed that witnesses saw lights... or noticed the sound in a room changed... or the temperature altered... as I said, that kind of thing could lead to a place where these things could be predicted to a degree and therefore examined to a better understanding.

What you're reading now, however, is really an "alpha" thought... no beta testing as yet. It's obviously something we're going to work on and look into... but we can hope that other's may follow suit... and instead of only looking into the "effect" of a paranormal event, will want to try and look into the "cause" as well... and improve all our understandings of these things.

I've heard buying lottery tickets called a tax on stupidity... but I have always preferred the concept that it's a tax on hope... and every week, I plunk down nine-bucks on the weekly draws in that hope that through a fluke in the universe, Sue and myself will become fluid in the funds department in the extreme.

Now, before getting into this post, allow me to explain a couple of things.

First, both Sue and myself have been studying paranormal phenomena publicly for (at the time of writing this,) a combined twenty-five years... much longer if you count the stuff we did on our own before the Interwebs... and I know that I started the first Torontoghosts website because of one simple thing... it didn't exist.

You see, had something... heck, anything like Torontoghosts existed when I went to find it, I would have simply worked like the dickens to join in! I have a genuine thirst for knowledge on the topic and because I wanted discussion with like-minded types, I set up the site to share and have a place for everyone and anyone to find out more and, when possible, participate.

I had (and still have) no dreams of "fame"... I didn't want a teevee show or the like... I wasn't (and really am still not) writing a book... and most certainly had no delusions of fortune through this subject (these sites are a perennial drain on our resources and that's never not been the case,)... so, to be a little blunt, as one investigator and enthusiast once said to myself and Sue, "You guys really live this stuff, don't you?"

We do. We're interested... nothing more... and absolutely nothing less.

Sue and I have both had our experiences... we've never hidden that... and we're trying to find out more about those moments as well as about all the others we've heard and read about.

That's why we're here.

Secondly, my priorities are and always have been "family first"... meaning that I cannot make looking into these subjects a "full time career".

Realistically, to make a career out of this, you're either going to have to find a media organisation and actually do a teevee show or the like (and considering the current ratings on the big "ghost shows" out there, don't hold your breath trying to find a production company willing to fund a show even if you did want to do that,) or you have to try and charge or make money from the subject at hand... and because of our own stance on these things and really not wishing to either be "paid" ghost busters or the like (sorry, but these types all tend to be very questionable,) or be tour guides (there's plenty of good ghost tours by far more capable people than us in these matters,) that would mean finding a university or the like willing to let us do things on their dime. (This isn't likely because the evangelical non-believers or "so-called sceptics" have poisoned the well as far as serious educational study by major institutions who don't wish to appear "woo-woo" and, far more importantly, I was an admittedly dreadful students and quite frankly, my educational background is a bit of a shambles to be kind!)

So, as the old joke says, "I owe! I owe! It's off to work I go!" and yes, I do have a day job... and it's not anywhere near "paranormal" related.

Getting back now, that "tax on hope"... what would it mean to us?

Well, obviously, if it's small, it would just go to supporting my family... but what if I entertain that big dream... the "big win" as they say?

First of all, assuming I've been relieved of the old "I owe!" song as sung above, the study *would* become my full time job... if one could ever consider sharing information and learning a "job". It would be and always has been my passion.

It's funny... because many people, right now, assume that PSICAN (and by proxy, Torontoghosts, Pararesearchers, and the like,) have offices... and we don't. It's all from home... so would we get an office?

No.

It's not necessary as such.

What would we do then?

Well, much like Sue and I both created websites because they weren't there for us, there's one dream that we do have... and I'm certain more than a few of you might share it... and it came home this past week rather clearly.

On Facebook, the SPR announce two new books about ghosts and hauntings... and one truly has me salivating.

"Ghosts: A Social History" by Owen Davies is a five volume set that (obviously) covers a lot of ground... There's a PDF about it available by clicking here.

Now, on a rough estimate, Sue and I probably already own at least one-hundred and fifty books on paranormal subjects, and we actually have had people question us why we'd not only (a) invest so much into books about the subjects but (b) why we would be so desperately wanting this five volume set... especially when the list price is going to be very close to $1,000 Canadian?

Well, the answer to "a" is... see above about why we're here.

The answer to "b" is that dream which has bupkiss to do with offices, television programs, or fame... and everything to do with having a place for anyone who is... well... like us.

What we'd do with a "big win" is set up a learning centre... open to anyone with an interest in the paranormal... complete with conference rooms and... here it comes... a resource and reading room.

If you're like us... and I do know many of you are... you head to the local bookstore and library and check out the appropriate sections for new material. What's new in the realm of the paranormal?

How great would it be to have a place where you can just walk in and voila! It's all there! Free for you to use and learn from!

Oh, and when I say open to "everyone", I would want the place to also host those with alternative views... indeed, if real sceptics or even evangelical non-believers want to respectfully look into and even discuss things, this would be for them to...

...because no matter what you feel may be the causation of paranormal experiences, we all deserve a chance to try to find out if our ideas, thoughts, and even speculations have any validity... or if there's more information we can gather to find out if we're on a right track.

PSICAN doesn't need desks... it needs work tables... and books... lot's of books... and computers... and conference rooms... and even small lecture spaces... perhaps a lab...

The rest, from there, would most likely come via accumulation.

This is our hope... it's what I do pay that tax on.

Sure, one could ask the question what would we do if someone gave us a tonne of money... for our work and efforts to continue... a kind benefactor, if you will...

I suppose that could happen... and yes, that would make the dream a reality... but the lottery is probably more realistic... think about that!

..and why would we want this dream of a learning centre? Because as of now, in our neck of the woods it doesn't exist and no one seems to be trying.

...but we are...

...even if it is a small hope costing nine-dollars a week.

It's rare, oddly enough, that Sue and I sit down to watch a television program on ghosts... and for those that don't know us well, that's because I have high blood pressure and most shows that report to revolve around our studies cause this problem to escalate for various reasons. That said, the other day, we caved in and watched a documentary from National Geographic on ghosts named "American Paranormal".

Realistically, it wasn't too bad... and perhaps I'll write out a full (not completely praising as it had issues,) review of the program, but for now, I want to focus on one thing mentioned in the show.

In the show, theoretical astrophysicist, Dr. Dan Hooper of the Fermi Lab/University of Chicago, addressed the idea that ghosts "go through walls" and the like... and how could that happen?

Dr. Hooper quite rightly suggested that, since all matter (as we know it,) is made of atoms and all atoms carry an electrical charge, when one atom with a charge meets another, then the atoms are repulsed by the charge carried in their electons. Think baseball hitting brick wall... The atoms of the baseball do not allow it to pass through the brick wall and there's a collision and the ball is bounced back.

In simple physics, this is true... so, are there atomic particles that do not have this problem?

Enter what is called "The Ghost Particle"... or neutrinos.

Neutrinos are unique in that they don't have an electron as such... they are, in effect, electrically neutral and because of this, can pass through matter pretty easily. In fact, in the time you read this, approximately 250 trillion neutrinos from our own sun's neutrinos, created from the natural radioactive decay, passed through your body... and hopefully, you didn't feel a thing.

This passing through of (literally) everything is why neutrinos are called the "ghost particle"... and if you'd like to know more about them, and prefer television as a medium, try to locate an excellent BBC documentary from the Horizon series called "Project Poltergeist", or if you wish to stay online, look up information about the neutrino particle collector in Sudbury known as "The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory".

Dr. Hooper suggested that since neutrinos can pass through solid matter, perhaps ghosts are made up of neutrinos.

There is a flaw with this, of course, because it would mean, since the ghosts he's referring to are seen, that these neutrinos become visible... now, one could argue they could "clump" together, but this doesn't hold water either... as in order for ANYTHING to be seen, it needs to either absorb or reflect light waves. Neutrinos, by their makeup, should not be able to do this.

So the neutrino-made ghosts is a good speculative theory, but not a great one.

If we assume, and we really should, that in order to be seen by people (especially in cases where these things are seen by more than one witness at a single time,) these things reflect or absorb light (making them visible,) then ghosts... or more correctly, apparitions need to have some form of atomic structure (or at least some sort of structure,) that plays against and with bands of light.

...but I had another rather important thought...

Much like when so-called sceptics (those who use the term "sceptic" but are usually little more than evangelical non-believers,) decree success on debunking all ghost sightings as the ghosts are "dressed" and how can clothes have a soul, (to which, the appropriate response is, "You're right... but this doesn't mean the sightings didn't happen... so the better question - rather than proclamation of non-existence based on a seeming logic flaw - is why ARE ghosts seen as clothed?") when the idea that atomic based matter can't "pass through" other solid atomic based matter and be seen by the naked eye (or without some seriously large equipment in terms of the neutrino... which shouldn't be able to be seen because of the problem with not being able to reflect/absorb light,) proves there's no such thing as ghosts... the question might NOT be, "Why do they then?"... but "When has this been reported to have happened?"

...because the question I had was just that.

How many times has an apparition been reported being SEEN going THROUGH something.

Not hitting a wall or door and disappearing... Not suddenly appearing at a wall or door... but seen on one side GOING THROUGH to the other?

The answer seems to be... almost never.

Oh, there are the odd cases... but when examining multitudes of books and stories... all kinds of reports and data... and even going through our last decade's worth of reports, I couldn't find anything other than people saying an apparition "went through" a wall or door or whatever because it hit the obstacle and vanished... not because it was seen on both sides of the obstacle.

I found a grand total of two cases where something was "seen" on one side of something solid, then re-appeared on the other side. That's two out of literally thousands.

This is not to say those two were "wrong", but they are in a deep minority.

Now, I did discount people filming "video orbs" and smoke as those can be (and honestly are,) most often mistaken natural phenomena (video orbs are usually insects as they're wee points of light - from where the light was reflecting from them - and when they turn or "go behind" something or someone, they appear to some folks as going through... but that's almost impossible to verify that it was "through" rather than around...) and strictly went for reports containing a recognisable figure that was seen doing this... like a person, animal, or vehicle... and the findings, such as they are, do seem to stand.

So, do ghosts have some sort of "atomic mass"? Do they "pass though" things?

I guess these are questions that, hopefully, one day we'll have an answer for.

There is an interesting write-up of a haunted trunk on the PSICAN website. Please have a look at the report by clicking on the link, many more photos are included.

The owner of the trunk would appreciate any feedback, thoughts, and/or impressions. You can send these in directly to PSICAN via admin AT psican.org please put Haunted Trunk in the subject header of your email and we will forward these on to the trunk's owner.

We are into the final three weeks of our online, experiment in remote viewing, which is open to the general public. For complete details on the experiment please visit the Paranormal Studies and Investigations Canada main website by clicking on the link.

Thanks to all those who have already participated, we have had a great response so far! Results will be made available in June.

Generally speaking, where are the best places for amateur ghost hunters to conduct a hunt?

Where ghosts are experienced of course!

Don't laugh........

It's amazing how many people go to places they assume are haunted based on things like Hollywood or fictional misconceptions as opposed to places where witnesses have actually reported experiencing ghostly activity.......

Basically, you visit websites, read books, and find places open to the public where ghosts are experienced and reported by people. For example, in Toronto, Old Fort York continues to be one of the most reported places where odd things are experienced... so it's a great place to start!

Some people may say things like, "But I can't go there at midnight to look for ghosts!"... which is silly, because you don't have to be there at midnight.

The best encounters at the fort have happened early morning (daylight), early afternoon, and around dinner time. Only two reports are from times when the fort is closed to the public.

Here's the thing... Ghost experiences happen at all times of day and night. The Hollywood myth of "only after dark" is only backed up by one truism...

If there was a ghost in a busy office tower, wandering the lobby... would those phantom footsteps be heard at 4:59pm... how about by a lone security guard at 4:59 am?

Obviously, one would get lost in the cacophony of day-to-day life... but the other would be VERY noticeable.

When it comes to apparitions or "seen ghosts", they as a rule tend to break light and are more often than not mistaken for a "normal person" until something tips the witness off... like odd dress, not responding to being spoken too, or "vanishing"... that last one is most common... so again, would you notice the "extra person" in a busy office lobby at 4:59pm? Probably not...

Now, in my opinion, some of the best sightings are indeed "daytime" sightings... and if someone did want to go to Fort York to have a look around, I'd suggest a rainy Sunday... chances are, you'll be pretty alone in the buildings (as tourists stay away because of the weather,) and staff are pretty good about letting people wander about on their own... provided they respect the buildings and the site. Not only are the entrance fees very cheap ($7.00 for adults, and only $3.00 bux for teens, and seniors), but you can also feel good about supporting a Toronto historic site while actively looking for ghosts.

RESCHEDULED For July 24th 2010 12:30 pm Due to G20 security concerns. Sorry for any inconvenience.

A free research class will be held at the Toronto Reference Library on Yonge Street, Toronto. The date set is Saturday, June 26th 2010 at 12:30 pm.

Robin Pyatt Bellamy (PSICAN researcher, and Toronto District School Board instructor) will be teaching the class, which will cover what resources are available at the Toronto Reference Library, and how these research resources will assist in a paranormal investigation.

There is NO cost for the course, but you MUST pre-register with Robin. You may contact her via email robin@triedit.net

This course is recommended for current investigators, but anyone serious about learning how to do background, and historical research while utilising all of the library system's resources is encouraged to attend.

Please note that this informal class is being offered by Robin only, and is not an officially scheduled event with the library. For further details, questions, and to pre-register please contact Robin directly via robin@triedit.net

Robin's website

Do you think some locations are more likely to have paranormal activity than others?

I'm thinking of a wall post to our Canadian paranormal Facebook group about the Niagara area in Ontario having a lot of reported paranormal activity per capita, and it seems by sheer volume of different types of reports like UFOs , and ghosts that it may be a more active location than others overall.

Why do you think some places are more likely to have activity? Ley lines, geologic make-up, tragic or rich histories, gateways to other dimensions or something else maybe that makes them more prone to paranormal activity?

There are lots of theories out there, but not any single one that explains paranormal hot spots.

As promised at our last update at the end of March more new updates, and articles have been added to the Toronto Ghosts Ontario Ghosts website. We love to hear your personal experiences with ghosts, and hauntings in the province of Ontario so please do keep sending them in. Your privacy will be protected, and witness comfort is our primary concern.

You may email us directly at submissions AT torontoghosts.org or submissions AT ontarioghosts.org

Essex County Nursing Home - New


Massey Hall - Updated


Backus Mill - Updated

Sault Ste. Marie - Feline Visitation - New

Chatham - Private Residence - New

Jackson's Point Resort - New

Toronto Bachelor Apartment 70s haunting - New

Enjoy!

I just saw an ad for a "ghost hunt" of sorts by a tour group that proudly displayed that it would feature, in all caps, "NO HISTORY TOURS" and "NO LECTURES".

It would also require you to use your own equipment and only be at "SERIOUS LOCATIONS".

Now, I do understand people wanting to avoid "dark tours" which are more strictly entertainment (kinda like a theme park's haunted house,) but when I do an investigation, I do want to be informed at SOME point about the history of the site, and if I was a newbie, I'd want some instructions... and if I'm paying a large fee, (roughly $30 per person per "event" at the place I saw,) I would hope to at least be able to look at/use/practice/find out about equipment and wouldn't expect to HAVE to bring my own... it's nice that I can, I 'spose... but...

Anyway, the question I really am interested in...

Is there a backlash I'm not aware of when it comes to open-to-the-public paranormal events with the general public in terms of being "taught" history or about the phenomena in general? Do people want to truly "go in cold" and just sort of discover blindly for oneself...?

I can actually understand this desire, but if I'm going to a "tour" or "event", I don't know if I (personally) would want this...

What say you?

(This is a LENGTHY post... but if you want, you can skip to the bottom and read the end question...)

I got into it recently with a fellow on Facebook who was horrified that The Ontario Science Centre was being used as the venue for a Harry Potter exhibit... basically, he wrote, and I quote...

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"Sorry for the caps but THIS IS NOT SCIENCE! WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP! What is wrong with the OSC...anything to make a quick buck!"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

I responded...

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"I have an idea! Let's make a tourist attraction about as dry as the average grade twelve science class! That will get young kids and parents interested in the topic! Well spotted! We must ensure that science is NEVER fun, NEVER presented to explain things that seem magical, and most importantly, a scientific educational/entertainment facility should NEVER fiscally viable!"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Later, I also included this statement (after many...)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"As a young'un in the early 1970's, Doctor Who got me into the ideas temporal physics... Star Trek got me into the idea of light-speed/hyper-speed travel... in the late 1970's, Doctor Who on TVO was "hosted" by Sci-Fi writer Judith Merril who would explain the concepts of both the "science" and occasionally the ethics behind the episode that aired. I could also add Close Encounters and Star Wars to various bits and bobs which led to...

Asking questions!

"How could this be possible?" and "How did they film this?"... See more

As a teen, in the 1980's, I then used the half-assed knowledge obtained from movies and TeeVee shows to make a complete ass out of myself with people who DID know more about the "real stuff" then me... but because of that, I learned... and ended up actually enjoying and pursuing a greater understanding (and education) in classical physics and mathematics... so I wouldn't look dumb anymore.

As such, I'm a TINY bit of a pedant on certain aspects of physics and generally nature as a whole... and have a low tolerance of those who ignore the findings of science and, as well, those evangelical non-scientists who can't see beyond their own preconceived dogmatic notions. (Eliminating "hypothesis" and "observation" from their mantras.)

NOW, why the bloody blue hell go into this?

#1: KID likes Harry Potter.

#2: KID wants to fly on a broom and play whatever the frig that game is.

#3: KID wants to make potions.

...in turn...

#1: KID still likes Harry Potter and drags parents to Science Centre putting more money in their coffers. (Hopefully, enough to convince them to do some much needed updating...)

#2: KID ends up seeing the exhibit and learning about green screen technology... belief in "magic" changes to awe of technology.

#3: KID ends up seeing the rest of the exhibits because parents drag him/her around... finds out about REAL potions (called "chemistry").

LAST: KID develops lifelong interest in science.

Think this isn't real?

Do something I've done... Ask the guys that work in JPL, NASA, Lockheed Martin... heck, even in my industry, medical instrumentation, "sci-fi" and "fantasy" has played a HUGE hand in getting people to work towards developing the "impossible" using, oddly enough, the possible...

Ergo: I think this exhibit is a VERY good thing!"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

OKAY, sorry about the RIDICULOUSLY long stuff here, but it got us thinking....

The Ontario Science Centre took some grief from this fellow about the Harry Potter exhibit...

I've heard people kvetch about The Beer Festival at Old Fort York...

Many people think Casa Loma in Toronto has no business displaying anything but early twentieth-century exhibits...

THESE points made, when we held the first Torontoghosts event in Y2K at Old Fort York, literally one-hundred supposed paranormal, folklore, and history buffs asked one question...

"Where is the fort located?"

They honestly did not know the location of the city's oldest buildings and easily, it's most historic and (yes) reportedly haunted spot.

WHERE am I going with all this?

-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Do you feel it's right or appropriate to hold SEEMINGLY not-connected events at historic sites just for some exposure and income for those locations?
-------------------------------------

Me, I'm obviously okay with it... provided it's not the ONLY event(s) offered at the site and false, faked, or bogus history isn't served to the masses and presented as "the truth" about the place. (I have zero tolerance for hoaxes.)

What say you?

We received the following report from the Gaspe region of Quebec in March 2010, although the experiences described have happened more than a decade ago. I find the description of the apparition as flashing white, and humanoid in shape very intriguing! While I have not come across any similar reports in the ghostly realm it does conjure up reports that are perceived as more alienish in nature. Sometimes how an event is labeled really does come down to the witnesses belief systems. One person's ghost may be another's demon, or Angel, or alien.

"I was 4 years old and I remember it as if it were just yesterday. I was living with my parents in a townhouse and even at that age Ii felt the creeps while there. I was in my room one day alone when I saw my grandmother sitting on the bed. I sat in front of her on a little chair and talked with her. She touched my hand, and to me everything seemed normal.

My father arrived from work for dinner and my sister was watching me so my father asked her where I was and she told him shes talking to someone or herself in her room. My father opened my door and asked me who I was talking to and I told him "Granny" he said" it cant be granny because shes been dead now for 6 months" I didn't know that. He got freaked out and brought me downstairs, and I never saw her again. Since that happened I've had several experiences I could never explain happen to me.

Once again i was very young around the same age as my other experience... My mother had left me alone outside while she had business in a big building and next to it was a very creepy abandoned house. There was a trail leading beside the house which led to the townhouse we lived in. I decided to go around the house and go home and my mother came out and found me and we went home together, but when I looked back at the creepy house I saw a figure of a person all lit up in white a flashing white and it was peeking behind the tree. I told my mother and she told me it was my imagination. Later when I was older it was about 6 pm when I looked outside behind the house and saw that very same thing, a human form lit up in white flashing zoom right past my house. Once again I told my Mom about it, but she didn't react.

Years went on and I never saw it again until I was 13 and I was listening to music in my room and doing home work and it was dark out. I always leave the blinds open and there again I saw it walk past my window. I didn't know what to do so i told myself it was my imagination. I am now an adult and I saw this very same figure where I live now passing by my back door and disappearing into nowhere.... 4 times in my life I have seen this..I would like to know what it is and why I saw it so many times."

Our thanks to the witness for sharing these experiences with us. It takes courage to do so, and in turn may provide comfort to someone else who has experienced strange things in knowing that they are not alone.

A few new updates, and articles have been added to the Toronto Ghosts website. We have a bunch more to upload as this has been a busier than normal winter season for us. I'll try to get these online as quickly as possible, but in the meantime please enjoy!

And don't forget that tomorrow March 27th 2010 at 8:30pm is Earth Hour. This will be the largest environmental movement in our collective history, and one fun way that you can participate is to turn off the lights, light the candles, and tell some spooky stories. Please do visit the Toronto Ghosts & Hauntings Research website, and the Ontario Ghosts & Hauntings Research website and pick out some of your fave ghost stories from around the province to use as part of your own Earth Hour festivities!

Ajax Phantom Jogger - Updated

Pembroke - Private Residence - New

Private Residence - Keele and Gunns Road - New

George Brown House - New

Enjoy!

No one can come to any other conclusions. Instead of disputing the facts, we must try to explain them.

The above quote is from Prof. Henry Habberley Price (1899 - 1984), respected Oxford don and former president of the Society for Psychical Research when asked about whether he believed in the existence of ghosts.

Ready for a weird statement...

Science does not NOT believe in ghosts.

Trouble is, science also does not believe in ghosts.

Science is not an entity or "group" with an idea or thought anyway, so the whole statement's kind of odd... Science is a method of asking a question, figuring out a way to verify an answer, then attempting to verifying that answer through repeated processes and either the end result is the guess (hypothesis) is shown correct or incorrect.

Therefore, "science" does not care about ghosts... until someone says, "I Think Ghosts Are..."

...then it's a hypothesis... and science can start to work if possible.

This still doesn't answer a question many people still ask... Do Ghosts Exist?

The answer, like it or not, is "Yes".

Ghosts exist.

I just felt the collective shriek followed by the spittle-flecked anger of the so-called sceptical folks who abhor even the entertainment of such a thought as it goes against their own cherished non-faith... but they should indulge me here because I'm making a pretty valid point regardless of your views.

How can I make such a bold statement when normally I'm all about the "empirical" (absolute hard evidence) before making proclamations?

Simple.

Define "existence"... and define "ghost" while we're there.

Existence is simply the state of "being". To exist means it's "there".

"Ghost", by general description, is something that does "ghostly" things... or rather, something that is perceived to be "ghostly"... such as odd voices when none should be heard, items moving about on their own volition, strange figures being seen... that sort of thing. That, in popular lexicon, is a "ghost".

If you don't believe in ghosts, I only have one question... Do you believe people have not experienced these things? Ergo: These people experienced a "ghost".

As you can now see, as we've always said, it's not the phenomena that's in question, but the causation thereof.

What causes "ghosts" is a way better question... and definitely open to interpretation... and that's where "non-believers" and "believers" should part company... well, until there is empirical data to show one way or another in whatever case is being examined.

Of course, if I really wanted to make a point, I could rightly point out that "ghosts" exist in fiction and folklore... and perhaps that existence isn't perfect, but it's existence none-the-less... well, in a quasi-existential way...

Therefore, yes, allow me to proclaim... Ghosts do exist.

...and like the professor said above, we need to figure out what they are and why they are... not if they are.

"St. Patrick's Day is an enchanted time -- a day to begin transforming winter's dreams into summer's magic."

~~By Adrienne Cook.~~

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?

This photo was shared with us over the Christmas holidays by Dr Kimberly Molto a research scientist specializing in neurobiology in Ontario. The photo was taken by a widow in 1938 who identifies the figure seen in the photo as her deceased husband. The photo was taken (according to his widow) several years after he died of a massive coronary in the basement that he had been renovating.

Please note that I cropped the photo during the scanning purpose to center the image.

This is one of those photos where you either believe the photographer's information or you don't. I find it to be a very interesting photograph!

A photograph taken by Darlene Stewart that shows what appears to be a missile-like object with flames was taken on Monday January 25th 2010 in Harbour Mille Newfoundland.

Witnesses say that the object appeared to have originated from the water, and that there appeared to be at least two other objects sighted as well. It was reported that the RCMP initially stated that the object was a French missile, but have since retracted that statement. Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) have made no official statement at this time frustrating at least one local MP who is concerned for the safety of area residents.

And how does the Canadian government react (those elected to serve Canadian citizens including the witnesses to these objects in Newfoundland)?

Here is a news snippet:

Harbour Mille, Newfoundland - Newfoundlanders on Burin Penninsula are shaking their heads over the pronouncement from the Prime Minister's OfficeThursday, asking why a hobbyist would go to sea to launch a model rocket. Defense Minister Peter MacKay waded into the mystery by saying Friday

"We will provide money to build a landing strip for UFOs at Harbour Mille. No, I'm only kidding. I'm joking. That's a joke."

Eye witness Emmy Pardy spoke to Canadian Press on Friday, panning the model rocket theory proffered by the Prime Minister's Press Secretary.

"Yeah right - I don't believe that for one minute. It was no model rocket.... You don't even have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out."

Pardy also told Canadian Press that she thought the federal government is covering up the truth.

"To me it sounds like they know what happened and somebody's trying to cover something up. Somebody made a blunder somewhere."

Source Link

And there is more:

Peter Mackay was not the only Conservative having a bit of fun with the UFO sighting. The Globe & Mail's Jane Taber reported that the joke in Ottawa Friday morning was “No it wasn’t Danny going off." The joke refers to Newfoundland Premier, Danny Williams, as well as the UFOs. Taber did not name the jokster, only identifying him or her as a 'Tory strategist.'

Source Link

I find the above insulting. The people who witnessed this deserve better, than this type of run around, and stupid jokes. How would you feel if you were these witnesses?

At least they did something during prorogation

Further Sources

CBC News Article

Chris Rutkowski's blog

On occasion we are asked why the Toronto Ghosts & Hauntings Research Society, and the provincial Ontario Ghosts & Hauntings Research Society asks that prospective members take an exam, and what is the exam's purpose.

Since we recently opened up the exam to the general public again we thought we'd answer these questions here, which provides for a quick, and easy reference.

Firstly, our exams can be taken online after January 1st and through to August most years. We tend to close them down between September, and December to weed out those who are only interested in the subject of ghosts around Halloween, and will rapidly lose interest come February. Experience has taught us that this is often the case with people who contact us about becoming a member in mid October, and quite frankly being a volunteer, non-profit organisation we need committed individuals who will be available, and interested throughout the year.

Our ghosts and hauntings exams are designed completely around the information found in our free online course book, and nothing else.

There are many ways to do things, and no real rights or wrongs in general, provided people, and laws are being respected.

However, we conduct research and investigations in specific ways and with certain methods that have worked for the GHRS, and PSICAN and these are all written in the course book.

There are also ethical principals we adhere strongly to that not all other groups or people might find important. These are of particular importance to us as we pursue charitable status as an educational resource within Canada.

Since we take on people from great distances such as our researcher in Thunder Bay that we may never have the opportunity to meet physically yet will be representing our group to the general public, witnesses etc, it is very important to us that we need to know at the start that we are working from the same page.

The exam is designed to give us both (our group and the exam taker) that ability. It simply lets us know that you understand and know exactly how, and why we do things the way we do them. And that you (the person taking the exam) are comfortable with this, and will be conducting any investigations you do with us or for us will be done in the same way.

Taking the exam only means that we will then be entrusting you with our reports and investigations in your area on a voluntary basis or areas you are interested in. Nothing more.

The larger Paranormal Studies & Investigations Canada (PSICAN) group also utilises a similar process for those who investigate UFO reports, and Cryptozoology reports around the country, and for the same reasons outlined above.

The course book is free, the exams are free, there are no membership dues, and we do not charge the general public monies for investigations.

Hope this has given the reader a better idea of why we utilise the exam process, and how we do things.

"Many of us fear death. We believe in death because we have been told we will die. We associate ourselves with the body, and we know that bodies die. But a new scientific theory suggests that death is not the terminal event we think."

Read the complete article here:

This is an interesting write-up...but "quantum immortality" is NOT a new theory. It actually belongs to Hugh Everett III who was brilliant, and very much ahead of his time.

Image Credit: The fantastic image above was painted in 1876 by William Harnett, and it currently may be viewed at the Witchita Art Museum.

The Westin Harbour Castle Hotel - New

Carp - Richardson Side Road - Updated

Sault Ste. Marie - Camp Korah - New

Strachan Avenue Haunting - New

Sometimes A Ghost Is Not A Ghost - New Editorial

Fort George - Update

Port Dover Private Residence - New

Private Residence Sorauren Ave - New

Private Residence Castleton Ave - New

New articles on the Paranormal Studies & Investigations Canada website include:

Black Phantom Dog In Lower Burlington - New

Lethbridge Disembodied Voices and Other Strange Events - New

Phantom Hitchhiker Millet Alberta - New

Electronic Voice Phenomenon Is Not Evidence Of Ghosts - New Editorial

North Vancouver Residential Haunting - New

St-Alphonse-De-Rodriguez Haunting - New

Enjoy!

Toronto January 9th 2010 Approx 12:30am

The witness reports:

"At approx 12:30am EST on Saturday January 9, 2010 I was standing on my balcony having a cigarette at Queens Quay W & Spadina Av (Facing SSE) and noticed a collection of what appeared to be 3 or 4 bright yellow/white orbs hovering over Wards Island (which is about 1KM south of where I am standing)... the orbs appeared to be behind the island, so I would estimate they were maybe 2.5KM out or more. At first I thought "Maybe it's a plane coming into Pearson or a Medivac helicopter coming into the Island airport" ... shortly thereafter, the "craft" appeared to turn to the west and I could easily tell that what I thought were 3 or 4 separate orbs were in fact ONE large craft. It looked to be about 300+ feet in length once it turned and I could see up to 6 orbs once it turned and the orbs were all moving in unison. The craft was hovering no more than 1000 - 1500' off the lake, made no noise that I could hear and did not move fast at all... maybe 10-15kts MAX. Over the course of the next 20 mins I continued watching the craft hover over the lake and make slow passes from east to west and west to east along the southern shore of Wards Island over to Gibraltars Point. It appears as if they were "checking something out"? Unfortunately my video camera is broken.. need to get a new one, so I was unable to take any video of the craft I saw.. Some other people I spoke with today also mentioned they saw several UFO's over the downtown area during the day yesterday, however that will not be part of my report since I did not witness them myself.Keep your eyes on the lake folks, activity is picking up more and more lately!"

Our thanks to the witness for sending us this report. We would appreciate hearing from any other potential witnesses to this event.

We have launched a brand new, online, experiment in remote viewing, which is open to the general public internationally. For complete details on the experiment please visit the Paranormal Studies and Investigations Canada main website by clicking on the link.

Thanks to all those who are participating in advance.

Wishing our readers a very happy, and safe new year! Cheers to 2010!