Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

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.