Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

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!